M.Wahajuddin - (1.) THIS application hits been preferred by Ramjyoti Misra and Deokinandan praying that the complaint as well as all proceedings in Case No. 488 of 1980 under Sections 420 and 109 IPC may be quashed. It would appear that charges against both the applicants have been framed as per Annexure B. The charge against Ramjyoti Misra is under Section 420 IPC while charge against Deokinandan is under Section 109 IPC. It is urged that there are no materials against the applicants for any charge and any case is not made out and the criminal proceeding is unnecessarily prolonged with a corresponding harassment to the applicants. The case of Khacheru Singh v. State of U. P., AIR 1982 SC 784 is an authority for the proposition that the trial court ordinarily should be left unobstrcuted in proceeding with the trial and when the very pleas can be raised before the trial court they should better be taken there. There are, however, other authorities cited before this Court in which at different stages interference was made in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. In the case of R. P. Kapur. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 886 certain guidelines have been laid down where interference can be made which are as follows : (I) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged. Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category. (II) Where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged ; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises ; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First Information Report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not and. (III) In which the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be successfully invoked are cases falling under the category where the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but their is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of cases it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support the accusation in question.
(2.) ANOTHER case cited by the applicants' counsel is the case of Trilok Singh v. Satya Deo Tripathi, 1979 SC 850. In that case it was held that where dispute raised was purely of civil nature and criminal proceeding initiated was an abuse of the process of the court the complaint deserves to be quashed. In that case the allegations made were examined, the infirmities were pointed out and it was then in that context that the Court held that criminal prosecution deserves to be quashed. In fact, from the body of the judgment it would appear that the Supreme Court was also of the view that the allegations lacked the ingredients of the offence of forgery or the like. Reliance was also placed upon the cases of Ayoob Husain v. Matiin Ashraf, 1979 ACrR 70, Ram Niwas v. Zafar Abbas, 1978 ACrR 17 and Mjs. Prestolite of India v. Munsif and Magistrate Hawaii, 1978 ACrR 128. In the case of Ham Niwas v. Zafar Abbas, 1978 ACrR 17 proceeding was quashed at the stage of evidence itself. In the other two cases proceedings were quashed at the stage of charge and summoning respectively. These citations were made to convass that if otherwise it is a suitable case for quashing proceeding the stage of proceedings would be immaterial and the proceeding can be quashed at any stage. I invited counsel's attention to the case of Delhi Municipality v. Ram Kishan, AIR 1983 SC 67 and in particular to the following observations : " Proceedings against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed only if on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. In other words, the test is that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting any thing, if no offence is made out then the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers under Section 482." Learned counsel for the applicants urged that in that case also the case of Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, AIR 1976 SC 1947 was quoted and relied and as per observation quoted proceeding can be quashed where materials on their face value make out no case and the essential ingredients of offence are not disclosed or the allegations made are patently absurd and inherently improbable and also where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary. After considering these rulings I am of the view that law has to be applied to the individual facts and circumstances of the case itself. While powers under Section 482 CrPC are no doubt very wide they are at the same time to be exercised with greatest care and rarely only in suitable cases to prevent the abuse of the process of law.
(3.) AS regards Ramjyoti Misra, the allegations in the FIR are that the complainant paid Rs. 1700/- to Ramjyoti Misra for admission in Hindu Public Coaching College, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur for B. Ed. examination on 1-10-1978 and at that time Deokinandan who is a student of that Institute and also its incharge was present and Sri Ramjyoti Misra told the complainant that the examination would take place in March 1979 and is demanding Rs. 1300/-. It is further recited that no examination of any student admitted for B. A. coaching earlier has taken so far and the complainant believes that a cheating is being practiced by the Principal, Sri Ramjyoti Misra and he has run away with the money. It was further alleged that Sri Deokinandan was present who is termed as Vice-Principal of the Institution. It was further stated that no receipt was issued inspite of repeated demands and reminders by Ramjyoti Misra for the sum of Rs. 500/- paid to him by the complainant. The complainant wants refund of his money i.e. Rs. 2200./-. The Principal Sri Ramjyoti Misra is doing publicity in papers concerning admission and the applicants later got aware that the Principal is actually practising cheating in this manner. If these allegations are taken to be correct they may disclose a prima facie case. A charge sheet was submitted by the police and a charge has been framed as Annexure B under Section 420 IPC against Ramjyoti Misra. Annexure C is the statement of Narendra Prasad who has lodged the complaint. Annexure D is the statement of Surendra Pratap Singh. Surendra Pratap Singh has stated that the institution is not registered as such and the figures shown are fictitious. It was argued that some other FIR was lodged and final reports were submitted as per Annexures. That would not mean that in every case which is registered separately a final report should be submitted. The matter depends upon the evidence produced in the investigation. It was also urged that some advocate was behind the actions and that the applicant also moved application that frivolous proceedings are carried against him. The papers have been annexed.;