STATE OF KARNATAKA versus M. DEVENDRAPPA AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 275 · Decided: 16-01-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
ST A TE OF KARNA T AKA 
A 
V. 
M. DEVENDRAPPA AND ANR. 
JANUARY 16, 2002 
[M.B. SHAH, B.N. AGRAWAL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, I 973. 
Section 482-lnherent Powers of ltigh Court-Quashing of proceedings-
Exercise of-Held, should be exercised sparingly when the complaint does not C 
disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious, oppressive or malafide---No 
meticulous analysis of case necessary-Prime facie decision should normally 
be avoided where facts are incomplete and hazy-No hard and fast rule can 
be laid down which would govern exercise of inherent jurisdiction-Under the 
facts, quashing of proceedings set aside. 
D 
Prosecution alleged that fake bank guarantees signed by respondent 
No. 2 posing as Manager of Bank were submitted by respondent No. 1 in 
the Office of Deputy Commissioner of Excise towards contract of sub-lease 
to act as excise contractors, and filed charge-sheet against them for 
commission of offences under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 read with E 
Section 1208 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Cognizance was taken by the 
Chief Judicial Magistrate. Respondents filed application before High Court 
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing 
proceedings initiated against them which was allowal by a Single Judge 
on the ground that there was likelihood of prejudice to respondents when 
excise officials have been indicated as witnesses as their involvement cannot F 
be ruled out; and that there is no material and definite evidence against 
the respondents. Hence this appeal by the State. 
Appellant contended that approach of Single Judge was unjustified, 
illegal and erroneous considering the limited scope of consideration in G 
powers exercisable under Section 482 of the Code at the stage of taking 
cognizance/framing of charges. 
Respondents contended that when there is no scope for conviction, 
continuance of proceedings would have been an abuse of the process of 
275 
H 
276 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] I S.C.R. 
A court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 
482 of the Criminal Procedurr Code, 1973 are very wide and the very 
B plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The power 
should be exercised sparingly. In exercise of the power Court would be 
justified to quash any proceeding if it finds initiation/continuance of it 
amounts to abuse of process of Court or quashing of these proceedings 
would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When exercising jurisdiction 
under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily 
C embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or 1 
not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not 
be sustained. (281-B-C; 282-B) 
2.1. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate 
D prosecution. High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally 
refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts 
are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected 
and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whethe'r factual 
or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective 
without sufficient material. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in 
E regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary 
jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. (282-D( 
F 
The Jania Dal etc. v. H.S. Chowdhary and Ors. etc., AIR (1993) SC 
892 and Dr. Raghu!Hr Saran v. State of Bihar and Anr., AIR (1964) SC 1 
, 
relied on. 
2.2. In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent 
powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the 
complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or 
oppressive. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light 
G of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of 
the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that 
the complaint is ma/a fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would 
be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an 
information is lodged at the police station _and an offence is registered, 
then the ma/a fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. 
H It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in 
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. M. DEVENDRAPPA [PASAYAT,

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