STATE OF A.P. versus ARAVAPALLY VENKANNA & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 1070 · Decided: 15-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 5 S.C.R. 1070 
~ 
A 
STATE OF AP. 
v. 
ARAVAPALLY VENKANNA & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 732 of 2009) 
B 
APRIL 15, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA 
AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 
c 
Section 482 - Order of High Court quashing an FIR for 
offence punishable under A.P. Prohibition Act- Held: This is 
not a case where FIR did not disclose commission of an 
offence - Order of High Court quashing FIR cannot be 
D sustained and is set aside - Principles regarding exercise of 
power uls 482 - Explained. 
The State Government filed the instant appeal 
challenging the judgment of the High Court whereby it 
E 
quashed an FIR of offences punishable uls 7(a) rlw s. 8(e) 
of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 and s. 109 
l.P.C. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD:1.1. Exercise of power uls 482 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973, in a case of this nature is the 
exception and not the rule. The section does not confer 
any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the 
inherent power which the Court possessed before the 
G 
enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances 
under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, 
namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to 
prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise 
secure the ends of justice. [Para 5) [1073-G-H; 1074-A] 
H 
1070 
STATE OF A.P. v. ARAVAPALLY VENKANNA & ANR.1071 
1.2. While exercising powers u/s 482 CrPC, the Court A 
does not function as a court of appeal or revision. 
Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has 
to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and 
only when such exercise is justified by the tests 
specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be 
8 
exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial 
justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. 
[Para 5] [1074-0-E] 
,_ 
1.3. In the proceedings instituted on complaint, c 
exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings 
is called for only when the complaint does not disclose 
any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. It is 
not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous 
analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether 
D 
• 
the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The 
complaint/FIR has to be read as a whole. If it appears that 
on consideration of the allegations in the light of the 
statement made on oath of the complainant or disclosed 
5 
in the F.1.R. that the ingredients of the offence or offences 
are disclosed and there is no material to show that the 
E 
complaint/F.l.R. is ma/a fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that 
event there would be no justification for interference by 
' 
the High Court. [Para 8] [1077-H; 1078-8-C] 
1.4. When an information is lodged at the police 
F 
station and an offence is registered, then the ma/a fides 
_, 
of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is 
the material collected during the investigation and 
evidence led in court which decides the fate of the 
accused person. The allegations of ma/a fides against the G 
imformant are of no consequence and cannot by itself be 
,.., 
the basis for quashing the proceeding. [Para 8] [1078-D] 
1.5. Keeping in view the principles of law as 
enunciated in the decisions of this Court, the action of 
H 
1072 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R. 
A the High Court in quashing the FIR cannot be maintained. 
B 
This is not a case where it can be said that the FIR did 
not disclose commission of an offence. Therefore, the 
High Court was not justified in quashing the FIR. [Para 
8] [1078-E] 
1.6. Whether the material already in existence or to 
be collected during investigation would be sufficient for 
holding the accused concerned guilty has to be 
considered at the time of trial. At the time of framing the 
C charge it can be decided whether prima facie case has 
been made out showing commission of an offence and 
involvement of the charged persons. At that stage also 
evidence cannot be gone into meticulously. It is immaterial 
whether the case is based on direct or circumstantial 
evidence. Charge can be framed, if there are materials 
D showing possibility about the commission of the crime 
as against certainty. That being so, the interference at 
the threshold with the F.l.R. is to be in very exceptional 
circumstances. Ultimately, the acceptability of the 
materials to fasten culpability on the accused

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