A criminal complaint lodged before the court under the provisions
of Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure or an FIR lodged in the police
station under Chapter XII of the Code has to be brought to its logical
conclusion in accordance with the procedure prescribed, power has been
conferred Under Section 482 of the Code to interdict such a proceeding in the
event the institution/continuance of the criminal proceeding amounts to an
abuse of the process of court. An early discussion of the law in this regard
can be found in the decision of R.P.
Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 wherein the parameters
of exercise of the inherent power vested by Section 561A of the repealed Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898, (corresponding of Section 482 Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973) had been laid down in the following terms:
(i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against
an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the
quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice;
(ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against
the institution or continuance of the said proceeding e.g. want of sanction;
(iii) where the allegations in the first information report or the
complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not
constitute the offence alleged; and
(iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there
is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly
fails to prove the charge.
The power to interdict a proceeding either at the threshold or at
an intermediate stage of the trial is inherent in a High Court on the broad
principle that in case the allegations made in the FIR or the criminal
complaint, as may be, prima facie do not disclose a triable offence there can
be reason as to why the accused should be made to suffer the agony of a legal
proceeding that more often than not gets protracted. A prosecution which is
bound to become lame or a sham ought to interdicted in the interest of justice
as continuance thereof will amount to an abuse of the process of the law. This
is the core basis on which the power to interfere with a pending criminal
proceeding has been recognized to be inherent in every High Court. The power,
though available, being extra ordinary in nature has to be exercised sparingly
and only if the attending facts and circumstances satisfies the narrow test
indicated above, namely, that even accepting all the allegations levelled by
the prosecution, no offence is disclosed. However, if so warranted, such power
would be available for exercise not only at the threshold of a criminal
proceeding but also at a relatively advanced stage thereof, namely, after
framing of the charge against the accused. In fact the power to quash a
proceeding after framing of charge would appear to be somewhat wider as, at
that stage, the materials revealed by the investigation carried out usually
comes on record and such materials can be looked into, not for the purpose of
determining the guilt or innocence of the accused but for the purpose of
drawing satisfaction that such materials, even if accepted in its entirety, do
not, in any manner, disclose the commission of the offence alleged against the
accused.
- Satish Mehra Vs State of N.C.T. of Delhi
and Anr.
Prepared by: S. Hemanth
Advocate at Hemanth & Associates
