http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  860 of 2007

PETITIONER: Manjula Sinha

RESPONDENT: State of U.P. & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/07/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

CRIMINAL  APPEAL NO. 860 OF 2007 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1067 of 2006)  With CRIMINAL  APPEAL NO. 861 OF 2007 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1714 of 2006)  

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

        1.      Leave granted.

2.      Appellant calls in question legality of the order passed by  a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing  petition filed for quashing the First Information Report (in  short the ’FIR’) dated 30th April, 2005 registered as Crime No.  124 of 2005 for alleged commission of offences punishable  under Section 498 A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, (in  short the ’IPC’) in Police Station in Sector 39, Noida, District  Goutam Budha Nagar.  

3.      On the basis of complaint filed, proceedings were  initiated. The legality of proceedings was questioned before the  High Court by a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of  Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ’Cr.P.C.’). The main  stand before the High Court was that even on a bare reading of  the FIR, it is clear that alleged commission of offence was not  made out so far as the appellant is concerned.   

4.      The High Court found that the application was to be  rejected as no ground was made out for quashing the  proceedings.  It however directed that the appellant shall not  be arrested till submission of the police report.  Further  condition was stipulated that the appellant has to pay  Rs.1000/- per month towards maintenance to the respondent  No.4.  The order was passed purportedly following the  principles set out in this Court in Bodhisattwa Gautanm v.  Subhra Chakrabarti  (AIR 1996 SC 922).

5.      In support of the appeal, learned counsel submitted that  even if detailed reading of the complaint is made, ingredients  of the alleged offences are not made out so far as the appellant  is concerned.  The appellant is the step mother of the husband  of the complainant.  She was staying separately.   

6.      It is further submitted that if the articles are identified

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

same shall be returned and therefore the proceedings should  not continue.

7.      Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order  passed by the High Court.   

8.      Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not confer any new power 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 course of administration of justice on the principle "quando  lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res  ipsae esse non potest" (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 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.  9.      As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court  under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very  plenitude of 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 be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The  High Court being the highest court of a 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 perspective  without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule  can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court  will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the  proceeding at any stage. [See: Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary  (1992 (4) SCC 305), and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar  (AIR 1964 SC 1)].  

10.     On a reading of the complaint which appears at page 23

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

of the paper book, it is clear that there is no allegation so far  as the respondent is concerned, so far as it relates to a case  covered under Section 498-A IPC.  There is no allegation of  any torture for dowry so far as the present appellant is  concerned.  The position is different so far as the allegations in  relation to Section 406 IPC is concerned.

11.     There are allegations contained in the FIR relating to the  applicability of Section 406 IPC. If ultimately the prosecution  is unable to substantiate the plea, the results would follow. It  is a case where the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be  exercised so far as the allegations relating to Section 406 IPC  are concerned.  But as noted, the position is different so far as  Section 498-A IPC is concerned.  Therefore proceedings stand  quashed so far as it relates to the offence punishable under  Section 498-A IPC.     12.    It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion  on the merits of the case.

13.     The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.

CRIMINAL  APPEAL NO.                   OF 2007 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1714 of 2006)

14.     Leave granted.

15.     Application filed before the High Court related to alleged  commission of offences punishable under Section 498-A and  406 of IPC. Undisputedly the charge sheet has been filed and  the same was not in question.  Charges have also been framed  and, therefore, the question of quashing the FIR does not  arise.

16.     The appeal is accordingly dismissed.