1

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL   APPEAL NO. 1082 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 10762 OF 2018)

CHILAKAMARTHI VENKATESWARLU & ANR.            … Appellants

VERSUS

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.                         … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Indira Banerjee, J.

This  appeal  is  against  a  judgment  and  order  dated  30th

August, 2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad

for  the  State  of  Telangana  and  the  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh

dismissing Criminal Petition No.9225 of 2018 filed by the appellant

under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) to quash

the criminal proceedings being PRC No.2 of 2018 pending against

the  Appellants  in  the  Court  of  the  Additional  Judicial  First  Class

Magistrate,  Narsapur,  West  Godavari  District  for  offences

2

punishable under Sections 307, 323, 427, 447 and 506(2) read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. The Appellants and the Respondent No.2, being the de facto

complainant, are apparently close relatives and are embroiled in a

partition suit being OS No.92 of 2012 filed by the Appellant No.2 in

the  Court  of  Additional  District  Judge,  Narsapur,  West  Godavari

District of Andhra Pradesh.

3.  The Appellant No.2 had also filed a criminal complaint being

Criminal  Complaint  No.518  of  2012  against  the  de  facto

complainant  and  others  in  the  Court  of  the  First  Class  Judicial

Magistrate, Narsapur, West Godavari District under Sections 120B,

420, 463, 464, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470 and 471 of the IPC.

4. It is the case of the appellants that the de facto complainant

has  falsely  implicated  the  Appellants  as  a  counter  blast  to  the

Criminal Complaint No. 518 of 2012 filed by the Appellant No.2.    

5.  The Appellants filed the Criminal Petition No. 9225 of 2018 in

the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.PC for quashing the

proceedings in PRC No.2 of 2018 on the allegation that there were

civil  disputes  pending  between  the  Appellants  and  the

Respondents.

6. The Appellant also contended that an earlier application in

the  High  Court  under  Section  482  of  the  CrPC  being  Criminal

Petition No.13272 of 2014 for quashing CC No.508 of 2012 filed by

the appellants, had been allowed by the High Court by an order

3

dated 23rd July, 2018.  

7. In  the  complaint  filed  in  the  instant  case,  it  is,  inter  alia,

alleged that the Appellants caused injuries on the body of the de

facto complainant  and  made  attempts  to  hit  the  de  facto

complainant on the head and hit him with an iron rod.   It is further

alleged that the Appellants openly threatened to kill the  de facto

complainant.  

8. It is the case of the de facto complainant that the attempt to

cause  injuries  on  the  head,  which  is  a  vital  organ,  could  have

resulted in the death of the  de facto  complaint.  The High Court

found in effect that the allegations in the complaint attracted the

offences, punishable under Sections mentioned in the complaint.  

9. The High Court rejected the contention of the Appellants that

the complaint was lodged as a counter blast,  observing that the

complaint of  the Second Appellant was filed on 28th September,

2012 whereas the instant complaint was filed on 21st July, 2015

that is after almost three years.

10. It is the case of the Appellants that the Appellant No.1, who

is working as Lecturer at Hyderabad has falsely been implicated.

Whether the Appellant No.1 was at Hyderabad when the alleged

incident took place, or whether the Appellants have  falsely been

implicated are questions of fact which have to be decided in the

trial by adducing evidence.

4

11. The High  Court concluded, and rightly, that it was open to

the  Appellants  to  adduce  evidence  to  show that  the  Appellants

and/or one of the them was not present at the time of the alleged

offence.

12. The plenary inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section

482 of CrPC may be exercised to give  effect to an order under the

Code;  to  prevent  abuse  of  the  process  of  the  Court;  and  to

otherwise secure the ends of justice.   

13. The inherent jurisdiction, though wide and expansive, 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, that is, to make orders as may be necessary to give

effect to any order under the Code, to prevent the abuse of the

process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

14. For interference under Section 482, three conditions are to

be fulfilled. The injustice which comes to light should be of a grave,

and not of a trivial character; it should be palpable and clear and

not doubtful and there should exist no other provision of law by

which the party aggrieved could have sought relief.

15. In  exercising  jurisdiction  under  Section  482  it  is  not

permissible for the Court to act as if it were a trial Court.   The

Court  is  only  to  be  prima  facie  satisfied  about  existence  of

sufficient  ground  for  proceeding  against  the  accused.   For  that

limited purpose, the Court can evaluate materials and documents

5

on  record,  but  it  cannot  appreciate  the  evidence  to  conclude

whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting

the accused.

16. The High Court should not, in exercise of jurisdiction under

Section 482, embark upon an enquiry into whether the evidence is

reliable  or  not,  or  whether  on  a  reasonable  appreciation  of  the

evidence the allegations are not sustainable, for this is the function

of the trial Judge.  This proposition finds support from the judgment

of this Court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. v.

Mohd. Sharful Haque and Another1.

17.   The High Court may have an obligation to intervene under

Section 482 of the Code in cases where manifest error has been

committed by the Magistrate in issuing process despite the fact

that the alleged acts did not at all constitute offences.   Reference

may be made to  S.W. Palanitkar and Ors. v. State of Bihar

and Another2.  However, it is important to remember that while

exercising  powers  under  this  Section,  the  High  Court  does  not

function as a Court of appeal or revision.

18. The power under Section 482 of CrPC should not be exercised

to stifle legitimate prosecution.   At the same time, if  the basic

ingredients  of  the  offence  alleged  are  altogether  absent,  the

criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 482 of CrPC.

1 (2005) 1 SCC 122 2 (2002) 1 SCC 241

6

19. It  is  well  settled that  where the allegations set  out  in  the

complaint or the charge-sheet do not constitute any offence, it is

open to the High Court,  exercising its inherent jurisdiction under

Section  482  of  the  Code,  to  quash  the  order  passed  by  the

Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence.  Reference may be

made  to  M.A.A.  Annamali  v.  State  of  Karnataka  and

Another3, Sharda Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar4 and  Smt.

Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivlingappa Konjalgi and Ors.5.  The

inherent power under Section 482 is intended to prevent the abuse

of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice.  Such

power  cannot  be  exercised  to  do  something  which  is  expressly

barred under the Code.  Reference may be made to  Dharampal

and Ors. v. Smt. Ramshri and Ors6.

20. In rejecting the application, the High Court relied upon the

judgment of  this  Court in the  State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal7

where this Court laid down the following guidelines for exercise of

power under Section 482:-    

“(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.

3 2010 (8) SCC 524 4 AIR 1977 SC 1754  5 Air 1976 SC 1947 6 AIR 1993 SC 1361 7  1992 Supp(1) SCC 335

7

(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 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.”

21. In  Dhanalakshmi v.  R.  Prasanna Kumar and Others8,

cited by the High Court, this Court held that:-

“Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers 8 1990 Supp SCC 686

8

the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of court. In proceedings instituted on complaint  exercise  of  the  inherent  power  to  quash the proceedings  is  called  for  only  in  cases  where  the complaint  does not  disclose any offence or  is  frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint  do  not  constitute  the  offence  of  which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it  is  open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of  the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction  or  not.  The  complaint  has  to  be  read  as  a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court.”

22.  The  High  Court  also  relied  on  State  of  Karnataka v.  L.

Muniswamy and Others9, (1977) 2 SCC 699, where this Court

considered the scope of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section

482 Cr.PC and held:-

“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, 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

9 (1977)  2 SCC 699

9

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.”

23. In  this  case,  the  High  Court  rightly  refused  to  quash  the

criminal  complaint,  observing  that  it  can  exercise  power  under

Section 482 of the CrPC only in rare cases.   The power to quash

the proceedings is generally exercised when there is no material to

proceed  against  the  Petitioners  even  if  the  allegations  in  the

complaint are  prima facie  accepted as true.   The High Court in

effect  found,  and  rightly,  that  the  allegations  in  the  complaint

coupled with the statements recorded by the learned Magistrate

had the necessary ingredients of offences under Sections 307, 323,

427, 447 and 506(2) read with Section 34 of the IPC.

24. We agree with the High Court that this is not a fit case to

quash the criminal proceedings for the reasons discussed above.

25. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

...…………......................................J.       [Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud]      

.………………...................................J.      [Indira Banerjee]         

NEW DELHI JULY 31, 2019