- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the FIR dated 28-5-2003 lodged by the respondent No. 4 in Case Crime No. 3453 of 2003 under Section 395 IPC in Police Station Kotwali, Khalilabad District Sant Kabir Nagar.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR has been lodged as the respondent No. 4-complainant was having grievance against the petitioner and had malicious intention, thus, the same is liable to be quashed. Legal maxim "quando Aliquid Mandatur, Mandatur Et Omne Per Quod Per Venitur Ad Illud"-means if anything is commanded, everything by which it can be accomplished is also commanded. But the inherent power for quashing the criminal proceedings has to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and the Court cannot be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the extra-ordinary and inherent powers of Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice. The same can be resorted to for correcting some grave errors that might be committed by the subordinate Courts or where the complainant, at the instance of somebody else wants to settle his score with other party and uses deliberately the machinery of the Court for oblique purpose and the party is likely to be subjected to unnecessary harassment for facing criminal proceedings or where the Court is satisfied that in case the proceedings are not quashed, there will be gross miscarriage of justice. However, the Court, under its inherent powers, can neither intervene at an uncalled for stage nor it can "soft-pedal the course of justice" at a crucial stage of investigation/proceedings. (Vide Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed, AIR 1945 PC 18; Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 2229; State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha, AIR 1982 949; Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao. Angre and others, AIR 1988 SC 709; Janta Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary and others, AIR 1993 SC 892; Union of India v. W. N. Chadha, AIR 1993 SC 1082; Rupan Deol Bajaj and another v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another, 1995 (1) JIC 1155 (SC) : (1995)6 SCC 194; Mushtaq Ahmad v. Mohammed Habibur Rahman Faizi and others, 1996 (1) JIC 578 (SC) ; (1996)7 SCC 440; State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawal, JT 1996 (1) SC 601; Ashim Kumar Roy v. Bipinbhai Vadilal Mehta, (1998)1 SCC 133; M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, (1998)5 SCC 749; M. Krishna v. State of Karnataka, JT 1999 (1) SC 540; Rakesh Ranjan Gupta v. State of U. P. and others, (1999)1 SCC 188; State of Kerala v. O. C. Kuttan, 1999 (1) JIC 603 (SC) ; AIR 1999 SC 1044; Arun Shanker Shukla v. State of U. P. and others, 1999 (2) JIC 570 (SC) ; (1999)6 SCC 146; Satvinder Kaur v. State (Government of N. C. T. of Delhi) and another, 2000 (1) JIC 1 (SC) ; (1999)8 SCC 728; Kanti Bhadra Singh and another v. State of West Bengal, 2000 (1) JIC 751 (SC) ; (2000)1 SCC 722 and G. Sagar Suri and another v. State of U. P. and others, 2000 (2) JIC 136 (SC) ; (2000)2 SCC 636.
(3.) IN State of U. P. v. O. P. Sharma, (1996)7 SCC 705, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has indicated that the High Court should be loath to interfere at the threshold to thwart the prosecution exercising its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code or under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of INdia, as the case may be, and allow the law to take its own course. Similar view had been taken in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another, AIR 1985 SC 628. State of Karnataka v. L. Munishwami, AIR 1977 SC 1489, the apex Court held that "for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused the Court possesses a comparatively wider discretion in the exercise of which it can determine the question whether the material on record, if unrebutted, is such on the basis of which a conviction can be said reasonably to be possible. ";