SOM MITTAL versus GOVT. OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 323 · Decided: 29-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
.....--· 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 323 
_,. 
..,.. 
SOM MITTAL 
A 
v. 
GOVT. OF KARNATAKA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2008) 
JANUARY 29, 2008 
B. 
"I 
~ 
[H.K. SEMA AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
s. 482 - Woman 
employee of company of which Appellant was the Managing 
Director was raped and killed during her travel from house to c 
workplace by driver of the vehicle in which she was travelling-
Complaint filed against Appellant alleging violation of ss. 25 
and 30 of the Act-: Magistrate took cognizance of the offence 
alleged - Petition under s. 482, CrPC for quashing of the 
complaint and the cognizance on the ground lhat Managing D 
Director does not come within purview of the Act - Dismissal 
-)'.... 
of, by High Court-Justification of-Held: Justified- Per Serna, 
J, Power u/s. 482 is to be exercised sparingly with 
circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases - Such power 
is not intended to scuttle justice at the threshold - Per Katju, 
E 
J., While power under s.482 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly, 
it cannot be said that it should be exercised in the "rarest of 
the rare cases" - Expression "rarest of the rare cases" was 
used in connection with s.302 /PC to hold that death penalty 
should only be imposed in rarest of rare cases and cannot be 
... ...._ 
extended to a petition under s. 482 CrPC - Kamataka Shops 
F 
and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 - ss. 2(1 )(h), 
25,30(1) and 30(3). 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 438 - State of 
Uttar Pradesh - Deletion of provision for anticipatory bail under 
G 
s.438 CrPC by s.9 of the U.P Act 16 of 1976 - Difficulties 
~ -( 
arising therefrom- Per Katju, J., Strong recommendation made 
to U.P Government to immediately issue an Ordinance to 
restore the provision for anticipatory bail by repealing Section 
9 of UP Act 16of1976, and empowering the Allahabad High 
323 
H 
324 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
A Court as well as the Sessions Courts in U. P to grant 
anticipatory bail. 
A woman employee of the company, of which 
Appellant was the Managing Director, was raped and killed 
during her travel from house to workplace, by driver of 
8 the vehicle, in which she was travelling. On the allegation, 
that adequate security was not provided to the said 
woman employee during her travel from home to 
workplace, a complaint was filed against the Appellant 
alleging violation of ss.25 and 30(3) of the Karnataka 
C Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961. The 
Magistrate took cognizance of the offence alleged. A 
petition under s.482, CrPC for quashing of the complaint 
and the cognizance was filed before the High Court. High 
Court dismissed the petition, but. altered the offence in 
D 
re~pect of which cognizance was taken· as one under s. 
25 r/w ~.30(1) of t!'le Act. 
The contention of the Appellant is that he is Managing 
Director of the company concerned and, therefore, entitled 
for exemption under s.3(1 )(h) of the Act and consequently 
E not liable for prosecution under s.25 r.w. s.30(1) of the Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD (Per Serna J.): 1.1. In a catena of decisions this 
Court has deprecated the interference by the High Court 
F 
i.n exercise of its inherent powers under s.482 of the Code 
in a routine mariner. It has been consistently held that the 
power under s.482. must be exercised sparingly, with 
circumspection and in rarest of rare cases. Exercise of 
inherent power under s.482 of the Code of Criminal 
G Procedure is not the rule but it is an exception. The 
exception is applied only when it is brought to the notice 
of the Court that grave miscarriage of justice would be 
committed if the trial is allowed to proceed where the 
accused would be harassed unnecessarily if the trial is 
H allowed to linger when prima facie it appears to Court that 
-r ..... 
SOM MITTAL v. GOVT. OF KARNATAKA 
325 
the trial would likely to be ended in acquittal. In other A 
words, the inherent power of the Court under s.482 of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked by the High 
Court either to prevent abuse of process of any Court or 
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The High Court 
will not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to B 
the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the 
allegations made in the F.l.R. or the complaint and that 
the extra-ordinary or inherent powers do not confer an 
arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its 
whims and caprice. The 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.