Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 27 (PAT)

Ram Nath Ray v. State of Bihar

2017-01-12

SUDHIR SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sudhir Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The present application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 27.1.2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in connection with Complaint Case No. 2806 of 2008, whereby after taking cognizance, the court below issued process for offences under Sections 147, 323 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner No. 1 besides other accused, came at the door of the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 abused him and threatened that common rasta is situated in his land and he will make boundary over the same. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 2 pushed the complainant on the ground and snatched golden top and also took away the box of the complainant, from the room. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that from bare perusal of the complaint case, no cognizable offence is being made out against the petitioners. There is a civil dispute pending between the parties. The present case is a mala fide prosecution. 4. No one appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2. 5. On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that from bare perusal of the complaint case, prima facie case under Sections 147, 323 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. The civil dispute pending between the parties cannot be the ground for quashing of the present criminal prosecution. 6. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which envisages three circumstances in which inherent powers can be exercised: "(i) to give effect to any order passed or made under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court; and (iii) to secure the ends of justice." Thus the inherent jurisdiction of this Court can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings in an appropriate case either to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Ordinarily, criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person, must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and this Court should be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage. 7. Ordinarily, criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person, must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and this Court should be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage. 7. It is, however, not possible or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule, which would govern the exercise of this inherent jurisdiction but by way of illustrations, some categories of cases, may be indicated, where the inherent jurisdiction can and should be exercised for quashing the criminal proceedings: "(1) Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the Complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the F.I.R. and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent man can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievances of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly accompanied with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to personal and private grudge." 8. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly accompanied with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to personal and private grudge." 8. It is worth quoting, the observations of PANDIAN, J. in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, which lay down the limitations of inherent power of this Court, saved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. "The power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to it's whim or Caprice." 9. In my view, inherent powers are in the nature of extraordinary powers to be used sparingly for achieving the object mentioned in Section 482 of the Code, in cases where there is no express provision empowering this Court to achieve the said object. The power is discretionary and should be exercised for ex debito justitiae. Purpose behind saving of inherent power is that no legislature can foresee all possible contingencies or eventualities that may arise in future and to meet with such situations, inherent power can be invoked by this Court. 10. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482, this Court should not assume the role of a trial court and embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability of evidence and sustainability of accusation on a reasonable appreciation of such evidence. 11. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no merit in the application. The interim stay granted to the petitioners vide order dated 25.10.2013 stands vacated. 12. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed in connection with Complaint Case No. 2806 of 2008, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all their points at the time of framing of the charge. Application Dismissed.