REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1499    OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.929 of 2011)

Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu                .... Appellant (s)

Versus

Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors.  .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This  appeal  is  directed against  the final  judgment  and  

order  dated  28.10.2010  of  the  High  Court  of  Judicature,  

Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 5928 of  

2010  wherein  the  High  Court  allowed  the  criminal  petition  

filed by Respondent Nos. 1-3 herein and quashed the criminal  

proceedings pending against them.

1

3) Brief facts:

(a) The  appellant,  who  was  a  defacto  complainant  and  

Respondent  Nos.  1-3 (accused persons)  are the residents of  

Komaripalem village of East Godavari District.  Though all of  

them belong  to  Congress  Party,  Respondent  No.  1,  Kovvuri  

Satyanarayana  Reddy  (A-1)  and  Respondent  No.  2,  Karri  

Venkata Mukunda Reddy (A-2) developed ill  will  against the  

appellant and were jealous of his gaining popularity within the  

party as well as in their area and neighbourhood.  Respondent  

No. 3, Mallidi Chinna Veera Venkata Satyanarayana (A-3), was  

initially an associate of the appellant herein but later joined  

hands with A-1 and A-2.

(b) In the year 2006, the appellant contested Zila Parishad  

Territorial  Constituency  Elections  as  an  independent  

candidate and won it.  A-1 and A-2 developed grudge against  

the appellant and they contracted Valmiki  Gujjula Ramayya  

Kondayya (A-4) who belongs to Emmiganur Mandal of Kurnool  

District for killing the appellant and gave him Rs. 7,00,000/-  

to purchase a vehicle and also gave separate amount for hiring  

goondas.   A-4 hired A-5 to A-12 for the said purpose and they  

2

conspired  together  and  hatched  a  plan  to  assault  the  

appellant.  Further, A-3 was entrusted with the responsibility  

of giving information about the movements of the appellant.   

(c) In pursuance of their conspiracy, on 07.11.2007 between  

7:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. when the appellant was proceeding in  

his Honda City car along with his wife and children to attend a  

function near J.K. Gardens,  A-4, A-7 to A-12 who were in a  

Scorpio Car came across his car.  In the meanwhile, A-5 and  

A-6 also came there on Bajaj Boxer Motorcycle belonging to A-

2 where A-4 and A-12 broke the windowpanes of the car while  

A-5 sprinkled chilly powder into the eyes of the appellant and  

attacked him with rods and sticks and caused injuries on his  

vital parts of the body which resulted in bleeding.  Thereafter,  

A-4 to A-12 left the spot.  Somehow the appellant managed to  

escape from the place of incident and went to the house of  

Jakkampudi Raja Indra Vandir (L.W.-6), who admitted him in  

the hospital  and informed the incident  to the  SHO, I  Town  

(L&O), Police Station, Rajahmundry.

3

(d) After  completion  of  investigation,  the  S.I.  filed  charge  

sheet  against  A-1  to  A-12  on  30.08.2008  for  the  offences  

punishable  under  Sections 120-B, 147,  148,  427,  307,  201  

read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “the  

IPC”)  before  the  Court  of  IInd Additional  Judicial  Magistrate  

First Class, Rajahmundry and the same was taken on file in  

PRC No. 14 of 2008.  The Magistrate committed the case to the  

Ist Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry for trial  

and the same was taken on file in Sessions Case No. 175 of  

2010.   

(e)  When the case was pending for trial, Respondent Nos. 1-3  

herein preferred Criminal Petition No. 5928 of 2010 before the  

High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Section 482  of the Code  

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “the Code”) to quash the  

criminal proceedings against them.  The learned single Judge  

of the High Court, by impugned judgment dated 28.10.2010,  

allowed  the  petition  and  quashed  the  criminal  proceedings  

against Respondent Nos. 1-3 herein (A-1 to A-3).  Aggrieved by  

the said order, the appellant-complainant has filed this appeal  

by way of special leave petition before this Court.

4

4) Heard  Mr.  Guntur  Prabhakar,  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellant  and  Mr.  Altaf  Ahmed,  learned  senior  counsel  for  

Respondent  Nos.  1-3  and  Mr.  D.  Mahesh  Babu,  learned  

counsel for Respondent No.4-State.   

5)  The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether  

the  High  Court  was  justified  in  quashing  the  criminal  

proceedings  against  the  Respondent  Nos.  1-3  (A1-A3)  by  

invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code?

Discussion about Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

6) Section  482  of  the  Code  deals  with  inherent  power  of  

High  Court.  It  is  under  Chapter  XXXVII  of  the  Code  titled  

“Miscellaneous” which reads as under:

“482.  Saving  of  inherent  power  of  High  Court-  Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect  the inherent powers of the High Court to make such  orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order  under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of  any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

This  section was  added by  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  

(Amendment) Act of 1923 as the High Courts were unable to  

render complete justice even if  in a given case the illegality  

was  palpable  and  apparent.  This  section  envisages  three  

5

circumstances  in  which  the  inherent  jurisdiction  may  be  

exercised, namely:

1. to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C.,  

2. to prevent abuse of the process of any court,

3. to secure the ends of justice.

7) In  R.P.  Kapur Vs.  State  of  Punjab AIR  1960  SC  

866=(1960)  3  SCR 388,  this  Court  laid  down the  following  

principles:-  

“(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.”

8) In  State of Karnataka vs.  L.Muniswamy & Ors. AIR  

1977 SC 1489, this Court has held as under:-

“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,  

6

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.”

Though the High Court has inherent power and its scope is  

very wide, it is a rule of practice that it will only be exercised  

in exceptional cases. Section 482 is a sort of reminder to the  

High Courts that they are not merely courts of law, but also  

courts  of  justice  and  possess  inherent  powers  to  remove  

injustice.  The  inherent  power  of  the  High  Court  is  an  

inalienable attribute of the position it holds with respect to the  

courts  subordinate  to  it.  These  powers  are  partly  

administrative and partly judicial. They are necessarily judicial  

when they are exercisable with respect to a judicial order and  

for securing the ends of justice. The jurisdiction under Section  

7

482 is discretionary, therefore the High Court may refuse to  

exercise the discretion if a party has not approached it with  

clean hands.

9) In a proceeding under Section 482, the High Court will  

not  enter  into  any  finding  of  facts,  particularly,  when  the  

matter has been concluded by concurrent finding of facts of  

two courts below.  Inherent powers under Section 482 include  

powers to quash FIR, investigation or any criminal proceedings  

pending before the High Court or any court subordinate to it  

and are of wide magnitude and ramification. Such powers can  

be exercised to secure ends of justice, prevent abuse of the  

process  of  any  court  and  to  make  such  orders  as  may  be  

necessary  to  give  effect  to  any  order  under  this  Code,  

depending upon the facts of a given case. Court can always  

take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same  

by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code. These  

powers  are  neither  limited  nor  curtailed  by  any  other  

provisions of the Code. However such inherent powers are to  

be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution.

8

10) It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section  

482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available  

to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is  

provided by the statute. It cannot be used if it is inconsistent  

with  specific  provisions  provided  under  the  Code.-  (vide  

Kavita v. State (2000 Cr LJ 315) and B.S. Joshi v. State of  

Haryana & Anr. ((2003) 4 SCC 675). If an effective alternative  

remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers  

under this section, specially when the applicant may not have  

availed of that remedy.

11) The inherent power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae,  

to do real and substantial justice, for administration of which  

alone Courts exist.  Wherever any attempt is made to abuse  

that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power  

to prevent the abuse. It is, however, not necessary that at this  

stage there should be a meticulous analysis of the case before  

the trial  to find out whether the case ends in conviction or  

acquittal. (Vide Mrs. Dhanalakshmi vs. R. Prasanna Kumar  

& Ors. AIR  1990 SC 494;  Ganesh Narayan Hegde vs.  S.  

Bangarappa  &  Ors. (1995)  4  SCC  41;  and  M/s  Zandu  

9

Pharmaceutical  Works  Ltd.  &  Ors.  vs.  Md.  Sharaful  

Haque & Ors. AIR 2005 SC 9).

12) It  is  neither  feasible  nor  practicable  to  lay  down  

exhaustively as to on what ground the jurisdiction of the High  

Court under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised. But  

some attempts have been made in that behalf in some of the  

decisions of this Court vide State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal  

(1992 Supp (1) SCC 335),  Janata Dal vs.  H.S. Chowdhary  

and Others (1992 (4) SCC 305), Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and  

Another vs.  Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and Another (1995 (6)  

SCC 194),  and  Indian Oil Corp. vs.  NEPC India Ltd. and  

Others (2006 (6) SCC 736).

13) In the landmark case of  State of Haryana vs.  Bhajan  

Lal (1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335) this Court considered in detail  

the provisions of Section 482 and the power of the High Court  

to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. This Court summarized  

the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be  

followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to  

quash a criminal complaint:

10

“(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 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.”

14) In  Indian Oil  Corporation vs.  NEPC India Ltd.  and  

Others (2006) 6 SCC 736 a petition under Section 482 was  

filed to quash two criminal complaints. The High Court by a  

11

common judgment allowed the petition and quashed both the  

complaints. The order was challenged in appeal to this Court.  

While deciding the appeal, this Court laid down the following  

principles:  

“1.  The High courts  should not  exercise  their  inherent  powers to repress a legitimate prosecution. The power to  quash criminal complaints should be used sparingly and  with abundant caution.

2.  The  criminal  complaint  is  not  required  to  verbatim  reproduce the legal ingredients of the alleged offence. If  the necessary factual foundation is laid in the criminal  complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients  have not been stated in detail, the criminal proceedings  should  not  be  quashed.  Quashing  of  the  complaint  is  warranted only where the complaint is bereft of even the  basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out  the alleged offence.  3. It was held that a given set of facts may make out (a)  purely a civil wrong, or (b) purely a criminal offence or (c)  a  civil  wrong as also  a  criminal  offence.  A  commercial  transaction  or  a  contractual  dispute,  apart  from  furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil  law, may also involve a criminal offence.”

15) In  State  of  Orissa & Anr. vs.  Saroj  Kumar  Sahoo  

(2005) 13 SCC 540, it has been held that probabilities of the  

prosecution version cannot be analysed at this stage. Likewise  

the allegations of mala fides of the informant are of secondary  

importance. The relevant passage reads thus:  

12

“It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the  case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in  order  to  determine  whether  a  conviction  would  be  sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion  that  the  proceedings  are  to  be  quashed.  It  would  be  erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude  that the complaint cannot be proceeded with.”

16) In  Madhavrao  Jiwaji  Rao  Scindia  &  Anr. vs.  

Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. AIR 1988 SC 709,  

this Court held as under:-

“The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution  at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be  applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted  allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is  also for the court to take into consideration any special  features  which appear  in  a particular  case  to consider  whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to  permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis  that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose  and  where  in  the  opinion  of  the  court  chances  of  an  ultimate  conviction  is  bleak  and,  therefore,  no  useful  purpose  is  likely  to  be  served  by  allowing  a  criminal  prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into  consideration the special facts of a case also quash the  proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.”

17) This  Court,  while  reconsidering  the  Judgment  in  

Madhavrao  Jiwaji  Rao  Scindia  (supra),  consistently  

observed  that  where  matters  are  also  of  civil  nature  i.e.  

matrimonial,  family  disputes,  etc.,  the  Court  may  consider  

“special  facts”,  “special  features”  and  quash  the  criminal  

13

proceedings  to  encourage  genuine  settlement  of  disputes  

between the parties.  

18) The said Judgment was reconsidered and explained by  

this Court in State of Bihar & Anr. vs. Shri P.P. Sharma &  

Anr. AIR 1991 SC 1260 which reads as under:

“Madhaorao  J.  Scindhia  v.  Sambhaji  Rao AIR 1988 SC  709, also does not help the respondents. In that case the  allegations constituted civil wrong as the trustees created  tenancy  of  Trust  property  to  favour  the  third  party.  A  private complaint was laid for the offence under Section  467 read with Section 34 and Section 120B I.P.C. which  the High Court refused to quash under Section 482. This  Court allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings  on the ground that even on its own contentions in the  complaint, it would be a case of breach of trust or a civil  wrong but no ingredients of criminal offences were made  out. On those facts and also due to the relation of the  settler, the mother, the appellant and his wife, as the son  and daughter-in-law,  this  Court  interfered  and allowed  the appeal. Therefore, the ratio therein is of no assistance  to the facts in this case. It cannot be considered that this  Court laid down as a proposition of law that in every case  the court would examine at the preliminary stage whether  there  would  be  ultimate  chances  of  conviction  on  the  basis  of  allegation  and  exercise  of  the  power  under  Section 482 or Article 226 to quash the proceedings or  the charge-sheet.”

Thus,  the  judgment  in  Madhavrao  Jiwaji  Rao  Scindia  

(supra) does not lay down a law of universal application. Even  

as per the law laid down therein, the Court can not examine  

the facts/evidence etc. in every case to find out as to whether  

14

there  is  sufficient  material  on  the  basis  of  which  the  case  

would end in conviction. The ratio of Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao  

Scindia (supra)  is applicable in cases where the Court finds  

that  the  dispute  involved  therein  is  predominantly  civil  in  

nature and that the parties should be given a chance to reach  

a compromise e.g. matrimonial, property and family disputes  

etc. etc. The superior Courts have been given inherent powers  

to prevent the abuse of the process of court where the court  

finds that  the  ends of  justice  may be met  by quashing the  

proceedings,  it  may  quash  the  proceedings,  as  the  end  of  

achieving justice is higher than the end of merely following the  

law.  It  is  not  necessary  for  the  court  to  hold  a  fullfledged  

inquiry  or  to  appreciate  the  evidence,  collected  by  the  

Investigating Agency to find out whether the case would end in  

conviction or acquittal.

Discussion in the case on hand

19) In  the  light  of  the  above  principles,  let  us  consider  

whether  there  are  sufficient  materials  available  in  the  

prosecution  case,  particularly,  in  the  FIR,  chargesheet  and  

statement  of  witnesses  insofar  as  respondents  herein  are  

15

concerned.   No doubt,  in the FIR, the complainant has not  

named these respondents as accused.  In Column No. 5 of the  

FIR under heading “Alleged cause”, it is stated that “Alleged to  

have been sustained injuries on the head, face due to assault  

by  unknown  persons  near  J.K.  Kalyana  Mandapam,  

Rajahmundry today (07.11.2007) around 7:00 p.m.”  Though  

the complainant has not specified any name, he had asserted  

that while taking a turn from J.N. Road to J.K. Gardens, some  

unknown persons kept their maroon color Scorpio car came  

across his way at around 7:30 p.m. and about 10 persons got  

down from it, while 5 others from auto armed with iron rods  

and sticks and they hit the glass on his side to stop him while  

he was driving the car.  It was also asserted that when he put  

down the door glasses, those persons sprinkled chilly powder  

on  them.   After  narrating  further  details,  at  the  end,  the  

complainant  has  concluded  that  those  persons  conspired  

together  and  attacked  with  an  intention  to  kill  him  in  a  

planned manner.  It was further stated that they all appeared  

to be goondas and if his wife, children and he himself will see  

them again, it would be possible to identify them.  If we read  

16

all  the averments in the FIR, it  cannot be claimed that the  

complainant  has  not  highlighted  the  incident  said  to  have  

been taken place on 07.11.2007 at around 7:00 p.m.

20) The  learned  single  Judge  of  the  High  Court,  after  

analyzing the FIR, chargesheet and the statement of witnesses  

has concluded that the materials placed by the prosecution  

are  inadequate  and  ingredients  of  offence  alleged  by  the  

prosecution  have  not  been  made  out  and  quashed  the  

proceedings  against  respondents.   We  have  already  pointed  

out the necessary assertion in the complaint and it is true that  

the respondents were not named in the complaint.   

21) Now,  let  us consider  whether  the  chargesheet  and the  

statement of witnesses make out a prima facie case in the light  

of  principles  which  we  have  adverted  to  in  the  earlier  

paragraphs.  After furnishing all the details about the motive  

and circumstances, the investigating officer from the materials  

collected has concluded:

“Under the above circumstances, A1 to A3 thought that LW- 1  has  become  insurmountable  hurdle  in  securing  seat  in  ensuring MLA elections.  These and other causes of political  rivalry  made  them to  determine  to  liquidate  LW-1 and to  achieve that object A1 and A2 invited A3 into their fold who  is a staunch supporter of LW-1 formerly and used to help in  

17

all angles.  In order to accomplish their desire of getting rid  of LW-1, five years ago LW-25 introduced A4 to A1 and A2 as  A1 and A2 are suffering a lot in collecting debts regarding to  fertilizers dealers.  On that relation A1 and A2 contacted A4  of Emmiganur, Kurnool District to implement the plan wit  him kill  LW-1.  A4 having secured A5 to A12 and having  received huge amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- for the purchase of  car and for separate amount for hiring the goondas from A1  and A2 agreed to implement the plan.  On 15.10.2007, A4  purchased a Maroon colour Scorpio Car AP 02 M 4959 from  LW-26 and 27.   The  said  car  and the  silver  colour  Bajaj  Boxer Motorcycle No. AP 5 AG 9418 of A2 has been used in  the commission of offence.  

A5  having  secured  A5  to  A12  boarded  in  Raja  Rajeswari Lodge, Emmiganur, Kurnool District of for which  LW-28 Yeluganti Perayya provided accommodation on night  of 31.10.2007 and from their, they came to Rajahmundry on  01.11.2007.   On 05.11.2007,  A4 got  effected  some minor  repairs to the Scorpio Car at the mechanic shed of LW-24  Anga Janaki Ram.  LW-24 gave receipt in the name of A4 for  the collection of repairing charges.  Later, A1 and A2 kept A4  to  A12  in  their  godown  at  their  Poultry  Farm  at  Komaripalem.   LWs-22  and  23  Manda  Subba  Reddy  and  Challa  Sreenu  on  the  instructions  of  A1  and  A2  used  to  provide food drinks etc., to A4 to A12.  It is at that godown,  the accused conspired and designed the plan to assault on  LW-1.  A1, A2 provided Bajaj boxer motorcycle No. AP 5 AG  9418, Iron Rods and Chili  Powder to A4 to A12.  A3 was  entrusted  with  the  responsibility  giving  information  about  the movement of LW-1 to A1 and A2 though the cell phone.”

With  regard  to  the  conversation  over  cell  phones,  the  

following materials are available in the chargesheet:

“LW-40 secured the cell phones call register of A1 to A3 from  LW-36 who is Airtel  Manager, on 07.11.2007 there are 22  calls between A3 and A1 the calls made just before, during  and after  the offence LW-40 also secfured the information  from the Idea Manager and it show that A4 and A5 using cell  phones for the relevant period.  Thus it is establishes that  the  conversation  and  communication  among  A1  to  A5  through cell phones to commit the offence of murder of LW- 1.

18

On  14.12.2007  at  6:15  a.m.  LW-40  arrested  A3  at  Komaripalem at his house in the presence of mediators LWs  32 and 33.  A3 made a confession regarding the commission  of offence along with the other accused.  In pursuance of the  confession of A3, the Nokia Cell Phone No. 9949131888 was  seized in the presence of mediators.”    

22) About  the  conspiracy,  after  adverting  to  various  

instances the Investigating Officer has observed thus:-

“The fact of the case establishes that A1 and A2 conspired  with the other accused A3 to A12 to commit the offence of  murder of LW-1.  LW-40 added Section of Law 120(b).  Thus  A1  to  A12  hatched  a  plan  to  end  the  life  of  LW-1  but  attempted the life of LW-1 and caused grievous injuries.”

23)   The statement of the appellant (L.W.-1) is also pertinent  

to  note  here.  After  narrating  the  entire  incident,  previous  

election dispute, enmity etc. the appellant has stated:  

“…..Keeping  all  these  facts  in  view,  I  suspect  that  Mr.  Sathibabu  and  Mr.  Mukunda  Reddy,  or  the  MRO  Mr.  Dummula Baburao (because of the grudge that I got the ACP  Trap laid) might have planned and got the attack made on  me with their men having hatched a Plan to kill me.  I know  the cell phones of Mr. Sathibabu, Mr. Mukunda Reddy and  Mr. Babi.  Cell number of Babi is  9941931888, Cell No. of  Sathibabu is  9866617777,  Cell  No.  of  Mukunda Reddy is  9849355777…..”  

In  the  same  way,  Padala  Sunita,  (L.W.-2)  wife  of  Venkata  

Rama Reddy, after narrating all the details like (L.W.-1) has  

stated:

19

“…..As  my  husband  has  been  an  obstruction  to  Kovvuru  Satyanarayan Reddy and Mukunda Reddy they might have  or else, because of the ACB Trap the suspended MRO Mr.  Dummula Baburao might have planned this attack on my  husband in order to kill  him or else anybody else for any  reason might have planned this attack on my husband to kill  him.  I can identify if I again see some of those persons who  attacked my husband and caused injuries to him…..”

24)   At  this  moment,  Mr.  Altaf  Ahmed,  learned  senior  

counsel, by pointing out that even if the above mentioned  

materials  are  acceptable,  however,  the  same  does  not  

constitute  “legal  evidence”  to  proceed  with  the  trial  and  

hence the High Court was justified in quashing the same for  

which he relied on a decision of this Court in  M/s Zandu  

Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. (supra).  In that decision, the  

factual position highlighted therein goes to show that the  

complainant had not come to the court with clean hands.  

There  was  no  explanation  whatsoever  for  the  inaction  

between 1995 to  2001.   Considering  the  factual  position  

that the complaint was nothing but sheer abuse of process  

of law and the High Court has to exercise its power under  

Section 482, this Court after finding that the High Court  

has failed to exercise such power quashed the proceedings  

initiated by the complainant.  On going through the factual  

20

position,  we  have  no  quarrel  about  the  proposition  laid  

down and ultimate  order  of  this  Court.   That  is  not  the  

position in the case on hand.  We have already pointed out  

various principles and circumstances under which the High  

Court can exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482.  

When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code,  

the  High  Court  would  not  ordinarily  embark  upon  an  

enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not  

or  whether  on  reasonable  appreciation  of  it  accusation  

would not be sustained.  That is the function of the trial  

Judge   The scope of exercise of power under Section 482  

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 detail  in  Bhajan Lal  

(supra).   The powers possessed by the High Court under  

Section 482 are very wide and at the same time the power  

requires great caution in its exercise.  The Court must be  

careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is  

based on sound principles.  The inherent power should not  

21

be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.  It would not  

be  proper  for  the  High  Court  to  analyse  the  case  of  the  

complainant in the light of all the probabilities in order to  

determine whether conviction would be sustainable and on  

such premise arriving at a conclusion that the proceedings  

are  to  be  quashed.   In  a  proceeding  instituted  on  a  

complaint,  exercise  of  inherent  powers  to  quash  the  

proceedings is called for only in a case in which complaint  

does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or  

oppressive.   There  is  no need to  analyse each and every  

aspect meticulously before the trial to find out whether the  

case would end in conviction or acquittal.  The complaint  

has  to  be  read  as  a  whole.   The  statement  of  witnesses  

made on oath to be verified in full and materials put forth in  

the chargesheet ought to be taken note of as a whole before  

arriving any conclusion.  It is the material concluded during  

the investigation and evidence led in court which decides  

the fate of the accused persons.   

22

25) On  going  through  the  entire  complaint,  materials  

collected and stated in the form of chargesheet, statement  

of witnesses LW-1 and LW-2 and by conjoint reading of all  

the above materials, it cannot be presumed that there is no  

legal and acceptable evidence in support of prosecution.  In  

the light of the principles enunciated in various decisions  

which we have noted in the earlier paras, we are satisfied  

that the High Court has exceeded its power in quashing the  

criminal proceedings on the erroneous assumption that the  

ingredients of the offence alleged by the prosecution has not  

been made out.   The High Court  has also committed  an  

error  in  assuming  that  with  the  materials  available,  the  

prosecution cannot end in conviction.   

26) For the above reasons and in the light of the materials  

which  we  have  discussed,  we  are  unable  to  sustain  the  

conclusion arrived at  by the  High Court.   The  impugned  

order  quashing  the  criminal  proceedings  against  the  

Respondent Nos. 1-3, i.e. A1-A3 in S.C. No. 175 of 2010 on  

the  file  of  the  Ist Additional  Assistant  Sessions  Judge,  

Rajahmundry, arising out of P.R.C. No. 14 of 2008 on the  

23

file  of  the  IInd Additional  Judicial  Magistrate  First  Class,  

Rajahmundry is  set  aside.   The trial  Court  is  directed to  

proceed  with  the  case  against  the  respondents  in  

accordance with law.  The criminal appeal is allowed.        

...…………………………………J.                   (P. SATHASIVAM)  

...…………………………………J.           (H.L. GOKHALE)  

NEW DELHI; JULY 29, 2011.   

24