MAHESWARAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA — 1983 DIGILAW 142 (KAR)

N. D. VENKATESH, J. ( 1 ) IN the outskirts of Shimoga Town there lies a rice mill called Popular rice Mill. It is said to be of the ownership of a private limited company. Petitioners 1 to 4, who claim to be the directors of that company, and the 5th petitioner, its Managing Director, have filed this petition under S. 482 readi with S. 397 of the Crl. P. C. , 1973 (the code ). ( 2 ) ON the allegation that the company, in violation of the relevant orders under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act) had stocked and were dealing with paddy and rice, Shimoga Rural Police raided the premises of the mill on 3. 5. 1983, and, after seizing the grains and the account books, have registered a case in Crime no. 97 of 1983 against these petitioners and have forwarded the F. I. R. , to the court of Sessions which also happens to be the Special Court, under the Act. The investigation is said to be under progress. Neither a challan nor a 'b' summary report has been filed in the court. ( 3 ) IN this petition the petitioners seek the quashing of "the proceedings in Crl. No. 97/85, on the file of the sessions Judge, Shimoga. ( 4 ) IT may be noted there is no proceeding as such pending in the Court of Sessions or Special Court. Shimoga only a first information report has been sent to the Special Court by the police in their crime number referred to above. However, the investigating authority under the Act to whom two courses, initiation of a proceeding in court and initiation of a proceeding re: the essential commodity before the deputy Commissioner, are open, have already approached the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga, and the same is pending there. That proceeding is not challenged in this application. However, the investigating authority under the Act to whom two courses, initiation of a proceeding in court and initiation of a proceeding re: the essential commodity before the deputy Commissioner, are open, have already approached the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga, and the same is pending there. That proceeding is not challenged in this application. ( 5 ) THE relief sought for by them has to be examined within the ambit and scope of S. 482 of the Code which reads thus :"482 Saving of Inherent Powers of high Court- nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice". it can be called in question under three contingencies: (i) to give effect to any order made under the Code; (ii) to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court and (iii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. ( 6 ) REALISING the fact that no proceeding as such is pending in the Court against his clients, Counsel for the petitioners submitted that his clients are innocent; that they have not violated any orders issued under the Act; that, prima facie, there is no case at all against them and, therefore, the police should be directed to discontinue the investigation with a further direction to them to return all the articles seized by them. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, the learned state Public Prosecutor submitted that it would beyond the powers of this court under S. 482 of the Code to interfere with the investigation pending with the police and, therefore, the petition has to be dismissed. He further argued that there is a prirna facie case against the accused. He also argued that the police had already moved the deputy Commissioner under S. 6a of the Act in the matter and that that authority had also issued notices to all concerned in order to proceed with the enquiry. He further argued that there is a prirna facie case against the accused. He also argued that the police had already moved the deputy Commissioner under S. 6a of the Act in the matter and that that authority had also issued notices to all concerned in order to proceed with the enquiry. ( 8 ) THE first question that we have to decide is whether this Court, in exercise of its powers under S. 482 of the code, can direct the police not to investigage into the offences registered in their crime No. 97 of 1983 against the accused ? ( 9 ) THIS very question came up for consideration before Kudoor, J. , in Chandrashekhara vs. State of Karnataka (1 ). After elaborately considering all aspects of the matter and following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of W. B. vs. S. N. Basak (A. I. R. 1963 S. C. , 447), Jeham Singh vs. Delhi administration (A. I. R. 1974 S. C. , 1146), Kurukshetra University vs. State of Haryana (A. I. R. 1977 S. C. 2229); and Emperor vs. Khawaja nazir Ahmed (A. I. R. 1945 PC. 18) the learned Judge observes as follows at para-19 of his judgment : ''no more discussion would be necessary to hold that this Court cannot intrefere, in exercise of its inherent powers, under, Section 482 of the Code, with the statutory powers of the Police to investigage into the case. There is no proceeding pending before the Court below except the F. I. R. filed by the Cubbon Park Police on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner. During the course of the investigation, on the basis of the evidence collected, the investigating agency having reason to suspect that the petitioner complainant was the offender in the case, arrested him on 12. 3. 1977 and produced him before the Magistrate with a remand application. The Court released him on bail. The investigation is incomplete. In the meawhile, the petitioner approached this Court, through a petition under Section 482 of ther Code to quash the investigation directed against him and obtained stay of the further investigation. In view of the ruling of the Supreme Court referred to above, the petitioner's prayer to quash the investigation directed against him is un-sustainable. 1 am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid views. In view of the ruling of the Supreme Court referred to above, the petitioner's prayer to quash the investigation directed against him is un-sustainable. 1 am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid views. ( 10 ) HOWEVER, the learned counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in r. P, Kapur vs. State of Punjab (2) and State of WB. vs. Swaran Kumar guha (3) sumitted that in clear cases where indepth investigation into the facts are not necessary this Court may, exercising its inherent powers under S. 482 of the Code, quash the investigation initiated ( 11 ) I have carefully gone through those decisions. They do not directly deal with the question with which we are concerned in this proceeding. ( 12 ) IN Kapur's case (2) (supra), by the time the Supreme Court considered the matter, the police had submitted their report under S. 173 of the crl. P. C. 1898 (old Code) in the Court. unlike in this case in that case a proceeding as such, was pending in a court. And, besides this, subsequent to that decision, in the other deicisions referred to by Kudoor, J. , in Chandrashekhara's case (1) (supra), to which i would like to refer a little later, the supreme Court has been of the view that exercising its (High Court's) inherent powers under S. 561-A of the old Code (Sec. 482 of the new Code) the Court should not interfere with the process of investigation. ( 13 ) IN Swaran Kumar Guha's case (3) (supra) the matter had arisen on the writ side of the High Court (under art. 226 of the Constitution ). In the appeal before the Supreme Court while upholding the decision of the calcutta High Court by which that high Court had issued a writ of mandamus to the State Government and to the concerned officials to "recall, cancel, and withdraw the F. I. R. , the supreme Court has, no doubt, considered some of its previous decisions referred to by Kudoor, J. , in Chandrashekhar's case (1) (supra), but that was from a different angle. in swaran kumar Guha's Case (3) the learned counsel for the petitioner had contended, while challenging the decision of the Calcutta High Court, that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the high Court should not have been invoked while investigation was in progress and before it was completed. In support of that proposition the learned counsel had placed reliance on several decisions of the Supreme Court including Basak's case (4) (supra) and jeham Singh's case (supra) (5 ). Not agreeing with this submission of the counsel for the petitioner (State of w. Bengal) that High Courts could not at all have interfered at the stage of investigation, one of the learned judges, A. N. Sen. , J. , in his separate judgment at para 64 has stated that "the decisions relied on by Mr. Chatterji do not lay down, as it cannot possibly be laid down, as a broad proposition of law that an investigation must necessarily be permitted to continue and will not be prevented by the court at the stage of investigation, even if no offence is disclosed". It is with the aforesaid view of A. N. Sen, j. , another learned Judge constituting that Bench, Chandrachud, C. J. . fully concurs (para 14 ). Though the learned Judges observe in Swaran Kumar guha's case (3) that in extreme cases courts have power to intervene even at the stage of investigation, the precise question as to whether they can do so exercising their (High Courts') power under S. 482 of the Code has not been considered, and possibly because that question had not arisen for consideration. As already stated the proceeding before the Supreme Court was from out of a judgment of the Calcutta High Court, in a proceeding commenced therein on an application filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of india and not, as in this case, on an application filed under S. 482 of the code. ( 14 ) THE question with which we are concerned was the subject for decision in several cases which came up before the Supreme Court, to some of which Kudoor, J. , as stated above, has referred in Chandrashekhar's case (1 ). I may refer to one such decision which is directly on the point and to which there is no reference at all in Swaran kumar Guha's case (3 ). I may refer to one such decision which is directly on the point and to which there is no reference at all in Swaran kumar Guha's case (3 ). The judgment is by Chandrachud J. (as he then was ). In that case, Kurukshetra University's case (6) referred to above at para-9), the learned. Judge observes as follows at para-2:"it surprises us in the extreme that the High Court thought that in the exercise of its inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, it could quash a First information Report. The Police had not even commenced investigation into the complaint filed by the warden of the University and no proceeding at all was pending in any court in pursuance of the F. I. R. It ought to be realized that inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases". (Underlining italics supplied ). ( 15 ) IT is thus well settled that this court, exercising its powers under S. 482 of the Code cannot interfere in the course of the investigation or quash the first information report as sought for. ( 16 ) FOR the reasons stated above this petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. --- *** --- .