- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the orders dated 30.1.2013 and 26.7.2011 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mirzapur in Case No.145 of 2009 'State Vs. Jai Ram Patel and others', under Sections 323, 504, 452, 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, P.S. Lalganj, District Mirzapur. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that against other accused persons a separate charge-sheet was filed in which after conclusion of trial, the accused persons have been acquitted. It has also been submitted that the charge-sheet against the applicants was filed subsequently and they had also moved the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharge of the accused persons which has been rejected by order dated 26.7.2011 and charges have been framed by order dated 30.1.2013. Learned A.G.A. has defended the impugned orders.
(2.) IN R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings. "1. where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; 2. where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and acceptable in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; 3. where the allegations constitute an offence, but thee is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly falls to prove the charge." 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 Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1990(2) JIC 997 (SC): 1992 (Supp.1) SCC 335. A note of caution was, however, added that the power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of the rare cases. The illustrative categories indicated by this Court are as follows: "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 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 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 Act concerned (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 Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides 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."
(3.) IN M/s Eicher Tractor Limited and others Vs. Harihar Singh and another 2009 (1) J.I.C. 245 (SC), Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :- "Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is an exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. 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 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 recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. 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 the course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non protest (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 such 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 accepted in toto. It has further been held in the above noted case that the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest Court of 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 prospective without sufficient material." ;