STATE OF BIHAR versus SRI RA.IENDRA AGRAWALLA

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 744 · Decided: 18-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF BIHAR 
v. 
SRI RA.IENDRA AGRAWALLA 
JANUARY 18, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATIANAIK, JJ.j 
Code of C!iminal Procedure, 1973 : 
S. 482-Inherent powers of High Cowt-Exercise of-Magistrate taking 
C cognizance of offence under s. 414 !PC-High Court quashing the 
orde1-Held, High Cowt exceeded its jwisdiction in appreciating evidence and 
holding that no p1ima facie case was made out. 
The police found a truck loaded with pieces of the track trolly used 
in B.C.C.L. The driver told that the truck was loaded from the factory of 
D the respondent, and the goods had been purchased by a company. No 
documents regarding the transaction were produced. The duty officer 
prepared a report which was treated as the F.I.R. A case under s.414 I.P.C. 
was registered. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet against 
the respondent and five others was filed before the Magistrate, who took 
E cognizance of the offence. The respondent filed a petition under s. 482 Cr. 
F 
P.C. before the High Court praying for quashing the order of cognizance. 
The High Court allowed the petition. Aggrieved, the State filed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court, 
this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The inherent power of the Court under s.482 of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be very sparingly and cautiously used 
only when the court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest 
injustice or there would be abuse of the process of court if such power is 
G not exercised. So far as the order of cognizance by a Magistrate .is con-
cerned, the inherent power can be exercised when the allegations in the 
First Information Report or the complaint together with the other 
materials collected during investigation, taken at their face value, do not 
constitute the ollence alleged. At that stage it is not open for the court 
either to shift the evidence or appreciate the evidence and come to the 
H conclusion that no prima facie case is made out. [747-A-C] 
744 
( 
} 
• 
STATEv. R.AGRAWALLA(G.B.PATl"ANAIK,J.] 
745 
1.2. On examination of the charge-sheet and the F.I.R. filed in the A 
case, it is evident that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by trying 
to appreciate the evidence and coming to the condusion that no offence is 
made out. The High Court was wholly unjustified in invoking its inherent 
power under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the 
cognizance taken in as much as the allegation in the F.I.R. and the material 
referred to in the charge-sheet do make out an offence under s.414, I.P.C. 
·so far as the respondent is concerned. 
Mrs. Rupan Deal Bajaj & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr., JT 
(1995) 7 SC 299, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
66 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.3.92 of the Patna High Court 
in Cr!. Misc. No. 475 of 1992 (R). 
B.B. Singh for the Appellant. 
U .R. Lalit, E.C. Vidyasagar and lmtiaz Ahmad for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G.B. PATTANAIK, J. Leave granted. 
This appeal by the State is directed against the order of the Patna 
High Court dated 5.3.1992, by which order the High Court has quashed 
the cognizance taken against the respondent under Section 414 of the 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Indian Penal Code. 
F 
Shri Uddai Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, Dhanbad Police Station 
was on duty at the Police Station on 8.1.1992. At 5.15 P.M. two Constables 
brought a truck bearing Registration No. HRX-3125 along with its driver, 
Khalasi and two other persons and reported that they found the truck 
coming speedly and crossing the Railway gate and did not stop even though G 
the vehicle was asked to stop. They, therefore, chased the vehicle and 
stopped the same after some time and found that the truck has been loaded 
with pieces of iron tracks which were the property of B.C.C.L. On their 
enquiry about the documents, a copy of challan was shown but suspecting 
something wrong they brought the truck with the persons to the Police H 
746 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 
A Station. The Sub-Inspector then found on checking that most of the iron 
loaded on the truck were the pieces of the track trolly used in B.C.C.L. On 
suspicion the Sub-Inspector asked the driver who told that the truck has 
been loaded from the factory of Rajendra Agarwalla, the respondent in 
this appeal and one Surendra Agarwalla, proprietor of Associate Iron and 
B Steel Company at Saraidhel
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.