Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 60 (RAJ)

Qudratullah v. State of Rajasthan

2005-01-07

K.C.SHARMA

body2005
Judgment K.C. Sharma, J.-Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the papers annexed with the petition. 2. Through this Misc. Petition under Section 482 CrPC the petitioner seeks to quash criminal proceedings alleged to be falsely lodged against him in FIR No. 53/2004 registered at Police Station Dargah, Ajmer, on the ground that he has been falsely involved in the case and that on the day of incident he was not at the place of incident. According to him, the incident took place on 28.4.2004 and on that day he was at Ahmedabad and had participated in Walima-cum-Reception ceremony of his sister-in-law and stayed at Ahmedabad till 29.04.2004. 3. It is well settled that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 . Recently, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of AP vs. Golconda Linga Swamy (2004) 6 SCC 522 , have stated as to when inherent jurisdiction need be invoked and observed as under : “... 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 process of the Court and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends 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 inherent powers 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 recognises and preserves inherent powers of the High Court”. Their Lordships further observed : “While exercising powers under the section, the Court does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercised is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself . It is to be exercised ex debito justitae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone Courts exist. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercised is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself . It is to be exercised ex debito justitae to do real and substantial 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 the process of the Court to 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 proceedings, if it finds that initiation or 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 disclosed by the compliant, the Court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the material to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto”. 4. It is thus clear that this Court can exercise inherent power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings only in cases where the Court finds that on the face of complaint or the papers accompanying the same no offence is made out for proceeding with the trial. 5. Undisputedly, in the case at hand, as stated above the petitioner has prayed for quashing of criminal proceedings mainly on the plea of alibi, inasmuch as he was not physically present in Ajmer, rather he was at Ahmedabad and had participated in reception of his sister-in-law. It appears from the FIR that a case was registered against as many as 7 accused persons and the police after investigation has submitted challan under Section 299, CrPC, against the petitioner in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Thus, it cannot be said to be a case where commission of offence has not been disclosed. The petitioner has been absconding since the day FIR was lodged and the police having found material has filed challan against him, meaning thereby there was some material to proceed against the petitioner. Thus, it cannot be said to be a case where commission of offence has not been disclosed. The petitioner has been absconding since the day FIR was lodged and the police having found material has filed challan against him, meaning thereby there was some material to proceed against the petitioner. Obviously, the acceptability of the material to fasten guilt on the accused is a matter of trial and as stated above, present one cannot be said to be a case where commission of offence was not disclosed. In my considered view the plea of alibi cannot be taken note of to quash the criminal proceedings while invoking inherent jurisdiction. It is a matter of trial and the petitioner will have an opportunity to prove the plea of alibi by adducing ocular and documentary evidence. It is not a case where decline to invoke inherent jurisdiction would occasion failure of justice nor is a case where continuance of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.