Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 338 (JK)

Jyoti Bala v. Union Territory of J&K

2022-07-16

JAVED IQBAL WANI

body2022
Judgment : Petitions in hand, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have akin cause of action, urging similar set of facts, thus, are taken up together for final disposal, to forestall multiple, varied and inconsistent conclusions. In that milieu, it would be apropos to take up and discuss both the petitions in seriatim hereinafter. CR(M) No.88/2021 (Jyoti Bala and Another vs. U.T. of J&K and Another) 2. Petitioners, namely, Jyoti Bala and Sachin Kumar, in the petition in hand, implore quashment of case FIR No.0008/2021 dated 10th January 2021 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 383, 504, 506, 34 IPC registered in police station R.S. Pura, Jammu. 3. Petitioners’ case (Facts and grounds):— (i) It is the case of petitioners that petitioner no.1 is a Lawyer by profession and presently practicing as an Advocate at R. S. Pura, Jammu and petitioner no.2 is her assistant (Munshi). (ii) It is being stated that on 6th January 2021, petitioners had gone to the office of Sub-Registrar, R.S. Pura, for registration of a document, viz. sale deed and that respondent no.2 along with her husband was also there. Since it was closing hours of the office, as such, petitioners were asked by the staff to wait for some time. Pre-registration summary of sale deed, where the appointment was granted on 5th January 2021 but due to some unavoidable circumstances it could not be presented and petitioners had gone to concerned office to enquire the status of the document in the said office on 6th January 2021. (iii) It is being also averred that in the meantime, respondent no.2 along with her husband entered the office and started abusing and shouting on the staff members as already she was agitated over some issue and respondent no.2 started also shouting on petitioners and started abusing them as if it was their mistake about the issue, she was having with the staff members of Sub Registrar, R. S. Pura and that in order to avoid ugly scene created, petitioner no.1 started to move out from the office but she was pushed by husband of respondent no.2 on the chest and also touched her face in a very intimidating manner and also tried to outrage modesty of petitioner no.1. Both respondent no.2 and her husband used filthy language against petitioner no.1 for the reasons best known to them. Both respondent no.2 and her husband used filthy language against petitioner no.1 for the reasons best known to them. Aggrieved of their unavoidable behaviour, petitioner no.1 filed a criminal complaint which is pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, R. S. Pura. (iv) It is being further stated that petitioner no.1, who belongs to a respectable family, thought for two days to lodge FIR and as it was a matter of huge insult to petitioner no.1, as such, there was no other option than to approach concerned police station with a complaint and, accordingly, FIR no.0007/2021 dated 9th January 2021 was lodged against husband of respondent no.2. (v) It is being further averred that respondent no.2, as a counterblast, and after planning for four days has also registered a false and frivolous FIR bearing FIR no.0008/2021 dated 10th January 2021, against petitioners in police station R. S. Pura, Jammu for commission of offences punishable under Section 323, 382, 504, 506, 34 IPC. (vi) Impugned FIR no.0008/2021 is being challenged, inter alia, on the grounds that it is a figment of imagination and has been filed on false grounds in order to coerce petitioner no.1 to withdraw the complaint filed by her and her husband and impugned FIR is bad in the eye of law, and that petitioner no.1 after being abused and outraged by husband of respondent no.2 have no option than to register an FIR against him and impugned FIR is counterblast to the FIR registered by petitioner no.1; (vii) It is being also urged that impugned FIR is nothing but an attempt on the part of respondent no.2 to pressurize petitioner to withdraw the complaint as well as FIR lodged by her against husband of respondent no.2 and that impugned FIR needs to be quashed as registration of it cannot be allowed to be used as a tool of coercion against petitioners, particularly petitioner no.1. (viii) It is also being urged that conduct of respondent no.2 in lodging impugned FIR is self-explanatory to the fact that a long planning has gone in filing FIR. (Objections/Status Report by Respondent No.1) 4. (viii) It is also being urged that conduct of respondent no.2 in lodging impugned FIR is self-explanatory to the fact that a long planning has gone in filing FIR. (Objections/Status Report by Respondent No.1) 4. Status report/objections have been filed by respondent no.1, insisting therein that on 10th January 2021, complainant, namely, Kesar Parveen, Advocate, arrived at police station and produced an application for lodging FIR against petitioners and during course of investigation, on 19th March 2021, complainant arrived at police station and on her identification, I.O. visited the spot, prepared site plan, recorded statement of eye witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P.C. and proved the offence under Section 382, 504, 506, 34 IPC against accused persons/ petitioners and that accused are still absconding after committing the offence and snatched property, i.e., gold chain weight 1 ½ Tolas, valuing Rs.65,000/-, which is yet to be recovered from accused persons and that further investigation is going on. 5. In the background of case set up by petitioners, it would be apt to reproduce impugned FIR No.8/2021 in verbatim hereinafter:— “Brief facts of the case is that the complainant namely Kaser Parveen Advocate wife of Sham Lal Gorkha resident of Jinder Melhu thesil RS Pura district Jammu arrived at police station and produced an application written in English for registration of FIR. The contents of the application are as, To, The SHO, P/S RS Pura. Sub:- complaint against 1 Jyoti Majotra Advocate 2 Sahil her munshi and two unknown persons. R/S, the applicant most respectfully submits as under 1 That the applicant is permanent resident of UT of J&K and practising advocate at Munsiff court RS Pura. 2 That today while returning from tehsil towards court in the street at R S Pura the above mentioned person abused me on the instigation of Jyoti Majotra who present on the spot abused me with filthy language, slaped me and also snatched my gold chain of 1 ½ tola and ran away from the spot while leaving the spot they threatened me to kill if in future I take any action against the staff of Sub Registrar RS Pura. it is pertinent to mentioned here they are following me after I reached in the court in the morning. 3 That there is every apprehension to me they can more harm me if no action taken against them. it is pertinent to mentioned here they are following me after I reached in the court in the morning. 3 That there is every apprehension to me they can more harm me if no action taken against them. It is pertinent to mentioned here that on 06.01.2021 I have protested against the staff of Sub Registrar RS Pura and she had also threatened me do not to take action against them .It is therefore requested to kindly take action against them in the interest of justice. Sd/- English Kesar Parveen Advocate. According to the contents of the application, offences under section 323, 382, 504, 506, 34 IPC are made out. In the regard, case FIR No.08/2021 U/S 323, 382, 504,506,34 IPC stands registered in this police station. As the case pertains to special reported case which is 1st of its nature 2nd case of the specific area and 4th case of the current year. The investigation of the case entrusted to ASI Mohinder Singh No.956508/EXJ. The Photocopies of FIR and special report will be submitted in related offices through dak.” 6. Perusal of impugned FIR no.08/2021 reveals that commission of alleged offence punishable under Section 323, 382, 504, 506, 34 IPC, have been levelled against petitioners. Section 323 IPC says qua punishment for voluntarily causing hurt and it provides that whoever voluntarily causes hurt is liable to be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to one year or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Section 504 IPC relates to intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace and it envisions that whoever intentionally insults and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment for two years or with fine or with both. Insofar as Section 506 IPC is concerned, it provides that whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation is liable to be punished with imprisonment for two years or with fine, or with both. CRM(M) No.138/2021 (Kesar Parveen & Anr. v. UT of J&K & Ors.) 7. Insofar as Section 506 IPC is concerned, it provides that whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation is liable to be punished with imprisonment for two years or with fine, or with both. CRM(M) No.138/2021 (Kesar Parveen & Anr. v. UT of J&K & Ors.) 7. Quashment of FIR No.7 of 2021 dated 9th January 2021, for commission of offences punishable under Section 354, 504 IPC registered in police station R.S. Pura, Jammu, is beseeched for in the instant petition. 8. Petitioners’ case (Facts and grounds) (i) In the instant petition, the case set up by petitioners is that petitioner no.1 is an Advocate by profession and has been working as an Advocate for last ten years in the courts at R. S. Pura, Jammu. it is being stated that petitioner no.1, being a lady Advocate, her husband, namely, Sham Lal Gorkha – petitioner no.2 herein, used to come in the evening around 4.00 p.m., to bring back petitioner to her residence at Village Jinder Kallan, Tehsil R.S. Pura, Jammu. (ii) It is being stated that petitioner no.1 used to go for getting the documents registered before Sub Registrar, R.S. Pura, whenever she got any document from any one to get registered therefrom and she got two documents registered on 5th October 2020 and two more documents registered on 16th October 2020 by Sub Registrar. Several times, she visited office of Sub Registrar to collect registered documents from its staff, but on every date, documents were not delivered on one or the other reason, and that on 6th October 2021, she at about 3.50 PM visited the office of Sub Registrar to collect the abovementioned documents, where she found the staff members from whom she had to collect documents, namely, Mr. Shabir and Mr Tirath Singh, were present and on asking, the official, namely, Shabir, told petitioner no.1 to wait for ten minutes and he would return. Shabir and Mr Tirath Singh, were present and on asking, the official, namely, Shabir, told petitioner no.1 to wait for ten minutes and he would return. According to petitioner, she waited for one and a half hour and thereafter she came to know that officials of Sub Registrar, R.S. Pura, were sitting in a room of office of Tehsildar, R.S.Pura, where they were enjoying a party, hosted by respondent no.3 and she went there at about 5.10 PM and found the office was locked inside and on knocking, the door was opened, where she saw official of office of Sub Registrar, R.S.Pura, who had to deliver the registered documents to petitioner no.1, had been enjoying the party with respondent no.3. Petitioner no.1 asked officials that she had been waiting for one and a half hour to collect documents and in the event, they had to host a party, they ought to have hosted such a party anywhere else or in a hotel and that on this, respondent no.3 became furious and started shielding and supporting officials of Sub Registrar. (iii) It is being further stated that on the same day, i.e., 6th January 2021, respondent no.3 wrote a WhatsApp message to one Ramakant, who forwarded it to Advocate Paramjeet Motan, who sent the said message to petitioner no.1 on 7th January 2021 at 10.27 AM and that on next date, i.e., 8th January 2021, petitioner no.1 saw respondent no.3 and asked her about sending of a message on WhatsApp, to which respondent no.3 became furious and with the assistance of her Munshi, namely, Sachin alias Sahil, and two more persons, manhandled petitioner no.1 and snatched a gold chain of petitioner no.1 and, accordingly, petitioner no.1 made a complaint on 8th January 2021 to respondent no.2 for registration of FIR against respondent no.3, her Munshi and two others, but on coming to know about the said complaint, respondent no.3 filed a complaint and fabricated a false and frivolous story and filed a complaint to SDPO, R.S.Pura, who forwarded the same to respondent no.2, who registered impugned FIR against petitioners. (iv) Impugned FIR no.7/2021 is being challenged, inter alia, on the grounds that FIR has been registered against petitioners as petitioner no.1 when at about 5.13 PM on 6th January 2021 reached in the office of Tehsildar, R.S.Pura, and found that the office was locked inside and on knocking the door, the same was opened and she saw that a party was being hosted, in which respondent no.3 was sitting and petitioner no.1 asked officials that told her to wait and she was waiting them for one and a half hour, but the officials had been partying in the office of Tehsildar R.S.Pura, on which respondent no.3 became furious. (v) It is being averred that impugned FIR has been registered to defend and support official, who in fact had to be present in their office but they left office and were hosting party in the office of Tehsildar, R.S. Pura and that impugned FIR has been registered on mala fide grounds as to why petitioner no.1 told officials of Sub Registrar, R.S. Pura, that if party had to be hosted that has not to be hosted in the office but somewhere else or in some hotel. (vi) It is being stated that petitioner no.1 on 8th January 2021 lodged a complaint to SHO P/S R. S. Pura – respondent no.2, against respondent no.3 and her Munshi/Clerk and two more persons, and it was only thereafter as a counterblast that a complaint was made to SDPO R.S. Pura, who endorsed that compliant to respondent no.2 and on the basis thereof, impugned FIR came to be registered. (vii) It is being further stated that petitioner no.2 has been unnecessarily shown in impugned FIR as he had not entered the office of Tehsildar, R.S. Pura, where the party was hosted inasmuch as the same is based on mala fide intention and to spite and take vengeance. Even on the face of impugned FIR, no ingredient that constitute offences under Sections 354 and 504 IPC, come to fore. 9. Given the case set up and grounds of challenge taken in the petition on hand, it would be expedient to extract relevant excerpt of impugned FIR No.7/2021 hereunder:— “Brief gist of the case is that an application vide endstt. 9. Given the case set up and grounds of challenge taken in the petition on hand, it would be expedient to extract relevant excerpt of impugned FIR No.7/2021 hereunder:— “Brief gist of the case is that an application vide endstt. No.282/SDR dated 08.01.2021 received at this police station through dak from the office of the SDPO RS Pura in order to look into the matter and to take appropriate legal action. The contents of application is as, To, The SHO, Police Station RS Pura. Subject:- Application for registration of FIR against Shyam Lal Gorka, S/o Not known R/o Jinder Melhu, tehsil RS Pura husband of Parveen Kesar, Advocate R/O Village Jinder Melhu, Tehsil RS Pura. Sir, With respect it is brought to your notice that the applicant is an advocate by profession and is practicing in the courts at RS Pura as well as at Jammu for the last 13 years. The applicant is also involved in social activities and is also General Secretary of National Human Rights Social Justice Council New Delhi India State Unit J&K. On 06.01.2021 the applicant in order to ascertain the status of one document which was to be registered visited the office of Sub Registrar RS Pura alongwith her assistant namely Sachin Kumar at around 4 PM as the client of the applicant was given the slot for 5-01-2021 (at 3 PM) copies whereof are enclosed herewith. The applicant when entered the office of Sub Registrar the accused alongwith his wife who is also advocate was arguing and shouting on the staff (officials) of Sub Registrar RS Pura. on so many occasions the accused without any authority would also try to obstruct the work of the applicant as he generally is found wandering within the premises of court complex at RS Pura and now also in SDM RS Pura, Sub Registrar RS Pura, Tehsildar RS Pura for the reasons which apparently don’t seem to be legal and are best known to both the accused. The applicant was watching whole of this ugly scene created by the accused person alongwith his wife for about 15 minutes. The applicant resides at Jammu as such she was to rush back to her home. The applicant was watching whole of this ugly scene created by the accused person alongwith his wife for about 15 minutes. The applicant resides at Jammu as such she was to rush back to her home. The applicant in order to get the report entered on the document asked one of the staff members of the Sub Registrar RS Pura office about the whereabouts of one Sh Tirath Singh Girdawar and was told that he may be sitting in another room. The applicant went to the other part of the office to look for some official so that report can be entered in the document to be registered. Five to six staff members were sitting there and asked the applicant and her assistant to wait for a while. The accused alongwith his wife within 5 minutes entered the court room in the Tehsil office and started shouting again on the staff members and the applicant. The applicant was shocked when the wife of the accused made a very absurd comment that “Madam in Sab Ko Aap Hotel Mein Le Jatey Yahan Kyun Baithey Ha” means that the applicant should have taken the staff members to the hotel and why she (applicant) was sitting there. The applicant on hearing this was shell shocked and again the wife of accused said that she (accused) knew the applicant and also started abusing and in front of all staff members alleged that the applicant was a lady of bad virtues and by indulging into illicit acts, the applicant gets her work done. The exact words used by the accused No. 1 are “Yeh Ganda Dhanda Karti Hai aur Ghatiya Kaam Karva Ke Apna Kaam Nikalwati Hai Aur Yeh Mein Pehle Se Janti Hoon Ki Yeh Dhande Karti Hain Aur Aaj Mujhe Yakeen Ho Gaya Hai”. The applicant shocked, humiliated abused, outraged started walking out of the court room and as soon the applicant reached the door, the accused alongwith his wife pushed the applicant and threatened that since he is member of National Panthers Party he will make a Tamasha of the applicant. The accused pushed the applicant by pushing her on the chest and cheek and abused like anything. By doing so the accused in front of so many people has outraged he modesty of the applicant as such is required to be booked under the relevant provisions of law. The accused pushed the applicant by pushing her on the chest and cheek and abused like anything. By doing so the accused in front of so many people has outraged he modesty of the applicant as such is required to be booked under the relevant provisions of law. It is, therefore, requested that an FIR may be registered against the accused under relevant provisions of law so that justice can be done to the applicant. Dated 07.01.2021, Applicant, SD/- in English. Jyoti Bala W/O Sh. Yog Raj, R/O Q No.D/28 University of Jammu, New Campus Jammu.9596739398. As per the contents of the application, offences under section 354, 504 IPC are made out. In this regard, case FIR No 07/2021 under section 354, 504 IPC stands registered in this police station. As the case pertains to special reported case which is 1st case of its nature, 1st case of the specific area and 3rd case of the current year. The investigation of the case entrusted to HC Swaran Singh No. 165/J. The photocopies of FIRs and special report will be submitted in related offices through dak” 10. Perusal of impugned FIR reveals that allegations under Section 354 and 504 IPC have been levelled against petitioners, albeit it unequivocally divulges on its meticulous analyzation the oral disagreement between two lady advocates. Thus, it is important to look into both the petitions, viz. CRM(M) no.88/2021 and CRM(M) no.138/202, as the allegations and counter-allegations in both the petitions, in essence and core, relate to one incident, in which verbal disagreements took place between the parties. Even glance of FIRs, viz. 7/2021 and 8/2021, impugned in these petitions, divulges that both the FIRs have been registered with respect to same alleged incident inasmuch as allegations levelled therein are essentially similar and portrays a vigorous response to the oral disagreements of the parties and settling scores, more particularly when the originators of both the FIRs are Advocates and, as such, professional rivalry is conspicuous and at galore. If that being the position, both the FIRs require to be quashed. 11. Law on the subject is already hackneyed and settled inasmuch as time and again the scope of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been examined and several principles that govern the exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court thereunder has been laid down. 11. Law on the subject is already hackneyed and settled inasmuch as time and again the scope of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been examined and several principles that govern the exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court thereunder has been laid down. A three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others 1977 (2) SCC 699 , has held that the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. In paragraph 07 of the judgment following has been stated:— “7. ....In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.” 12. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.” 12. The law on the question as to when registration of an FIR is challenged, seeking quashment thereof by an accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and what are the powers of the High Court and how the High Court should deal with such questions, is fairly well settled by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions, including in the case State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, in which the Apex Court elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr. P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the context of quashing the proceedings in criminal investigation. After noticing various earlier pronouncements, the Apex Court enumerated certain categories of cases by way of illustration, where the power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or secure ends of justice. Paragraph 102, which enumerates seven categories of cases where power can be exercised under Section 482 Cr. P.C. are extracted as follows:— “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report 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 first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under 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 FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR 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 FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person 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 grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 13. A three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. M. Devenderappa and another, 2002 (3) SCC 89 , had an occasion to consider the ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. By analysing the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Apex Court has laid down that the 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 abuse. It has further held that the Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that the initiation/continuance thereof amounts to the abuse of the process of the Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. Following was laid down in paragraph 6:— “6......All 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 course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). 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 exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae 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 abuse. It would be an abuse of 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 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 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 any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.” 14. It would also be germane to reproduce paragraph 8 infra:— “8. .....Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. It would also be germane to reproduce paragraph 8 infra:— “8. .....Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal ( AIR 1992 SC 604 ).” 15. In Sunder Babu and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2009 (14) SCC 244 , the Apex Court was considering the challenge to the order of Madras High Court, where an Application was preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It was contended before the Apex Court that the complaint filed was nothing but an abuse of process of law and allegations were unfounded. The prosecuting agency contested the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., taking the stand that a bare perusal of complaint disclosed commission of alleged offences and, therefore, it was not a case that needed to be allowed. The High Court accepted the case of prosecution and dismissed the application. The Apex Court after referring to the judgment in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra), held that the case fell within Category 07. The Apex Court, relying on Category 07, has held that Application under Section 482 of the Code, deserved to be allowed and it quashed the proceedings. Insofar as the present case is concerned, it also squarely falls within Category 07 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). 16. The Apex Court in another case titled as Priya Vrat Singh and others v. Shyam Ji Sahai reported in 2008 (8) SCC 232 , relied on Category 07 as laid down in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra). 16. The Apex Court in another case titled as Priya Vrat Singh and others v. Shyam Ji Sahai reported in 2008 (8) SCC 232 , relied on Category 07 as laid down in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra). In the said case the Allahabad High Court had dismissed an Application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings under Section 494, 120-B, and 109 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After noticing the background facts and parameters for exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Apex Court has held that Section 482 Cr. P.C. does not confer any new power on the High Court as it only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of 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. The 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 Courts. All courts, whether the 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 the administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, 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). While exercising powers under section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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. While exercising powers under section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of the justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers, the court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that the initiation / continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. 17. The powers, as noticed above, possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code, are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. [Vide: Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, AIR 1993 SC 892 ; Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1 ; and Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar, AIR 2006 SC 1937 ]. 18. [Vide: Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, AIR 1993 SC 892 ; Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1 ; and Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar, AIR 2006 SC 1937 ]. 18. In the case of Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat and others, reported in 2018 (3) SCC 104 , the Apex Court has laid down following at paragraph 26:— “26. This Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors ( AIR 1982 SC 949 ) had the occasion to deal with this issue. Y.V. Chandrachud, the learned Chief Justice speaking for Three Judge Bench laid down the following principle:— “Whether an offence has been disclosed or not must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. If on a consideration of the relevant materials, the Court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, the Court will normally not interfere with the investigation into the offence and will generally allow the investigation in the offence to be completed for collecting materials for proving the offence. The condition precedent to the commencement of investigation under S.157 of the Code is that the F.I.R. must disclose, prima facie, that a cognizable offence has been committed. It is wrong to suppose that the police have an unfettered discretion to commence investigation under S.157 of the Code. Their right of inquiry is conditioned by the existence of reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and they cannot, reasonably, have reason so to suspect unless the F.I.R., prima facie, discloses the commission of such offence. If that condition is satisfied, the investigation must go on. The Court has then no power to stop the investigation, for to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences.” 19. The Apex Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315, has, inter alia, laid down following principles of law:— “23. The Apex Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315, has, inter alia, laid down following principles of law:— “23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:— (i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; (ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; (iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; (iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). (v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; (vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; (vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; (viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; (ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; (x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; (xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; (xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; (xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; (xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; (xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;” 20. Inherent power, in view of above discourse, given to the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of the Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories as illustratively enumerated by the Apex Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). Judicial process is a solemn proceeding, which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of the oppression or harassment. When there is a material to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and a proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court or for that matter this Court will not hesitate in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the FIR/proceeding under various categories enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra). 21. Based on the holistic consideration of the facts and circumstances summarised in the foregoing paragraphs, the present case appears to be one where Categories 03, 05 and 07 of the illustrations given in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) is clearly applicable to both the cases. 22. 21. Based on the holistic consideration of the facts and circumstances summarised in the foregoing paragraphs, the present case appears to be one where Categories 03, 05 and 07 of the illustrations given in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) is clearly applicable to both the cases. 22. Having regard to what has been observed, considered and analysed herein above, I think that there is necessity to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, the petitions in hand are allowed and the impugned FIRs, bearing FIR No.7/2021 and FIR No.8/2021, are quashed. 23. Both the petitions are disposed of along with the applications. 24. The record, produced for perusal of the Court, be returned to Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG.