LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. versus ARUN GULAB GAWALI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 683 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v. ARUN GULAB GAWALI & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 590 of 2007) ·AUGUST 27, 2010 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Petition under A B I - For quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against accused - By the complainant as well as the accused - C Complainant alleging that the police forced him to lodge the complaint - Criminal proceedings quashed by High Court - On appeal, held: The power of judicial review and the inherent powers of court are to prevent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave errors and to ensure that stream of administration of justice remains clean and pure - The court, while exercising inherent power, has to act cautiously before proceeding to quash a prosecution - On facts, High Court was not right in quashing the criminal cases on the ground that due to lack of support of the complainant, the trial would be a futile exercise - Such case needed further investigation - However, the circumstances of the instant case suggest that the allegation of complainant against the police was correct - Thus, it was a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482. D I E F One of the respondents filed a complaint against respondent No. 1 alleging extortion. Thereafter, the respondent-complainant filed an application before Metropolitan Magistrate, stating that he did not want to proceed with the complaint. .The court rejected the said G 1 application. Thereafter the complainant and his wife filed a writ petition before the High Court alleging harassment by the police and seeking direction for removal of police 683' H ! 684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 10 S.C.R. A protection and asking for a judicial inquiry against the police, alleging that the complainant was forced by the police to lodge the complaint. The High Court disposed of the writ petition. The complainant then filed another writ petition before the High Court fo~ quashing of the B criminal case against respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 also filed writ petitions seeking quashing of criminal cases against him. The High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the criminal cases against respondent No.1. Therefore, the instant appeal was filed. c Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The power of quashing criminal proceedings has to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases D and the court cannot be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made in the F.1.R./Complaint, unless the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach E such a conclusion. The extraordinary and inherent powers of the court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whims or caprice. However, the court, under its inherent powers, can neither intervene at an uncalled for stage nor can it 'soft- F pedal the course of justice' at a crucial stage of investigation/ proceedings. [Para 12] [693-G-H; 694-A] I 1.2 The provisions of Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 Cr.P.C. are a device to advance justice and not to frustrate it. The power of G judicial review is discretionary, however, it must be exercised to prevent the miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave errors and to ensure that stream of administration of justice remains clean and pure. However, there are no limits of power of the court, but the H STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v. ARUN GULAB 685 GAWALI & ORS. more the power, the more due care and caution is to be A exercised in invoking these powers. [Para 12] [694-B-C] R.P. Kapµr VS. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866; State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. AIR 1992 SC 604; State of Karnataka vs. L.Muniswamy and Ors. AIR 8 1977 SC 1489 - relied on. State of West Bengal and Ors. vs. Swapan Kumar Guha and Ors. AIR1982 SC 949; M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 128; G. Sagar Suri and Anr. vs. State of UP. and Ors. AIR 2000 C SC 754; Ajay Mitra vs. State of M.P. and Ors. AIR 20Q3 SC 1069 - referred to. 1.3 The inherent power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, to do real and substantial justice, for 0 administration of which alo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.