USHA AHUJA versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 673 · Decided: 24-08-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

USHA AHUJA 
A 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 24, 1999 
[K. VENKATASWAMI AND 
B 
_.\, 
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 482-/nherent power-
Exercise of -High Court staying the filing of final report on the ground of c 
pendency of civil suit-Held, stay is erroneous. 
The appellant and respondent no. 2 were partners. Appellant filed a 
complaint against respondent nos. 2 and 3 alleging commission of offence 
under Sections 405, 406 and 408 of I.P.C. A civil suit was also pending 
between the parties for dissolution of the partnership firm and for rendition D 
of account. The respondents filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before 
the High Court and the High Court, taking note of the pendency of the civil 
suit, stayed the filing of final report by the police till the decision of the suit. 
The appellant filed an appeal before this Court against the order of the High 
Court. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, this Court. 
HELD : I. The width of power of the High Court under Section 482 
Cr.P.C., in principle is very expansive but in practice the power is exercised 
in exceptional cases. The inherent power of the Court is not an unrestricted 
power to make any order which the High Court desires to pass. The power F 
is meant to be exercised to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C. or to 
prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends 
of justice. [675-A) 
2. The impugned order serves no useful purpose and it is wholly 
extraneous to the purposes for which power is preserved. It is of utmost G 
, importance that criminal cases be disposed of expeditiously as right of an 
accused to have speedy trial is a right which follows from Article 21 of the 
Constitution of India. Far from ensuring speedy trial the High Court placed 
embargo at the pre-trial stage by staying the filing of final report by the 
police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. It is a well-known fact that disposal of a H 
') 
673 
-
674 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A civil suit takes fairly long time, so no useful purpose will be achieved by 
staying the filing of the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. by the police 
till the disposal of the suit. 
(675-B, C] 
B 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
842of1999. 
From the Judgment and order dated 17.4.98 of the Punjab & Haranaya 
High Court in Crl. M. No. 24679of1997. 
Puneet Bali, for Hari Shanker K. for the Appellant. 
C 
R.F. Nariman, (Mahabir Singh) (NP) and S.C. Mahan, Tarun Dua and 
K.C. Dua for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by : 
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J. Leave is granted. 
D 
The appellant and the second respondent were partners of partnership 
firm, Mis. Jupiter Industries. A complaint was lodged against the second and 
third respondents, FIR No.193, under Sections 405, 406 and 408, IPC at the 
Police Station, Mujessar, District Faridabad on July 19, 1996. A Civil Suit is 
pending between the parties for dissolution of the partnership firm and 
E rendition of accounts. The said respondents filed Criminal Misc.Petition 24679-
M of 1997 before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana praying to quash the 
FIR. The High Court by its order dated April 17, 1998, having noticed that 
a Civil Suit is pending between the parties and investigation on the complaint 
of the appellant by the police is in progress, stayed the filing of the final 
F report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. by the police. It is from that order, this appeal 
has arisen. 
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 
The relevant portion of the impugned order of the High Court reads as 
G follows: 
H 
"In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to be 
reasonable, if the filing of the final report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. 
is stayed till the decision of the suit. Ordered accordingly." 
It is now well-settled that the width of power of the High Court under 
l 
.I 
,_ 
USHA AHUJA v. STA TE OF HARY ANA [S.S. MOHAMMED QUADRI, J.] 
675 
Section 482 Cr.P.C., in principle, is very expansive but in practice the power A 
is exercised in exceptional cases. The inherent power of the Court is not an 
unrestricted power to make any order \\'.hich the High Court desires to pass. 
The power is meant to be exercised to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C. 
or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the 
ends of justice. By passing the impugned order, the High Court did not B 
achiev
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.