THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus VANGAVEETI NAGAIAH

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 160 · Decided: 15-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 6 S.C.R. 160 
) 
A 
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
v. 
VANGAVEETI NAGAIAH 
(Criminal Appeal No.1190 of 2003) 
B 
APRIL 15, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA 
AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 - Quashing of 
c proceedings - Inherent powers of High Court - Scope of -
Held: Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it 
finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the 
process of court or quashing of these proceedings would 
otherwise serve the ends of justice - When no offence is 
D disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the 
question of fact - On facts, High Court was not justified in 
quashing FIR - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 109 - Andhra Pradesh 
Prohibition Act, 1995. 
E 
An FIR was registered against appellant under 
Section 7(A) r.w. Section 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 
r.w. Section 109 IPC. Appellants filed petition under s.482 
Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR which was allowed. 
Hence the instant appeal. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. Exercise of power under s.482 CrPC in a 
case of this nature is an exception and not the rule. The 
section does not confer any new powers on the High 
G Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court 
possessed before the 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 
H 
160 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. VANGAVEETI 
161 
NAGAI AH 
process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends 
A 
of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down 
any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of 
inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing 
with procedure can provide for all cases that may 
possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have i.nherent powers 
B 
apart from express provisions of law which are 
necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties 
imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which 
finds expression in the section which merely recognizes 
and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All c 
courts, whether civil or criminal, possess, in the absence 
of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, 
all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to 
undo a wrong in the course of administration of justice 
on the principle quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, 
0 
concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest (when 
the law gives a person anything it gives him that without 
which it cannot exist). [Para 4] [165-G-H; 166-A-E] 
1.2. While exercising powers under the section, the 
Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. 
E 
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 
exercised ex debitojustitiae to do real and substantial 
F 
justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. 
Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice 
and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as 
to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such 
abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to 
G . 
allow any action which would result in injustice and 
prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers, 
court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it 
finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of 
the process of court or quashing of these proceedings 
H 
162 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 
A would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no 
offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may 
examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought 
to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials 
to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether 
B any offence is made out even if the allegations are 
accepted in toto. [Para 4) [166-E-H; 166-A] 
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR (1960) SC 866, relied 
• 
on. 
c 
2.1. When exercising jurisdiction under s.482 CrPC, 
the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an 
enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or 
not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it 
accusation would not be sustained. That is the function 
D of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt, should not 
be an instrument of oppression or needless h

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