http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 16  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  968 of 2008

PETITIONER: Dr. Monica Kumar & Anr.

RESPONDENT: State of  U. P. & Ors.  

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/05/2008

BENCH: S. B. Sinha & Lokeshwar Singh Panta

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T [Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.5593 of 2006]

REPORTABLE

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.

1.      Leave granted. 2.      Challenge in this appeal is to the final judgment and  order dated 24.08.2006 passed by the High Court of  Judicature at Allahabad whereby and whereunder the High  Court has dismissed Criminal Miscellaneous Applications  bearing Nos. 7792 of 2006 and 7791 of 2006 filed by the  appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal  Procedure  [for short \021Cr.P.C.\022] in Case Crime No. 412 of 2005  under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 and 427of the Indian Penal  Code [for short \021the IPC\022] and in Case Crime No. 21 of 2006  under Sections 452, 323, 336, 504, 506, 420 IPC respectively  registered against them at Police Station, Vijay Nagar, District  Ghaziabad and seeking for entrustment of further  investigation of the aforesaid cases to the Central Bureau of  Investigation [for short \021the CBI\022]. 3.      This case would reveal a chequered history of legal battle  being fought by the appellants \026 the students of Santosh  Medical College on one hand and the authorities of the College  on the other hand. 4.      Dr. Narendra Kumar, the father of the appellants, is  presently working as Professor/Medical Director of Neonatal  Intensive Care Unit [NICU] and also performing medical  practice at 2917, Middleboro Place, Modesto, California.  Both  the appellants were born in California and completed their  schooling in USA.  They decided to get admission in MBBS  course for the academic session 1996-97 in Santosh Medical  College, Ghaziabad [for short \021College\022] against NRI quota after  remitting US $50,000 and US $49,700 respectively towards  capitation fees and additional hostel fees of RS. 75,000 and  Rs. 45,000 and security deposits for one year.  That apart, the  College took a loan of Rs. 25 lakhs on interest @ 11.5% p.a.  from the father of the appellants and its payment was assured  by a handwritten slip.  The disputes and differences arose  after the father of the appellants demanded repayment of the  loan from Dr. P. Mahalingam \026 the second respondent herein,  Chairman & Managing Director/Trustee of Maharaji  Educational Trust and Santosh Medical College and Hospital,  Pratap Vihar, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad. In April 2001, the  matter was reported to the Additional District Magistrate,  Ghaziabad, for taking appropriate steps to get the loan

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 16  

amount refunded.  Dr. P. Mahalingam \026 the second  respondent in his letter dated 9.4.2001 acknowledged the  liability and had also assured to refund the entire loan  amount.  It was alleged that the second respondent with  vindictive attitude started harassing the appellants and in the  result declared in July 2000, Dr. Monica Kumar \026 the first  appellant was got failed in both theory papers of Pharmacology  and she was not allowed to appear in two subsequent  supplementary examinations as well as  in  Final Professional  MBBS Part-I Examination.   5.      The first appellant filed a Writ Petition No. 9150 of 2001  in the High Court wherein vide order dated 14.3.2001, the  second respondent was directed to permit the first appellant to  appear in the final Professional MBBS Part-I Examination.  In  compliance of the High Court\022s order, the first appellant was  permitted to appear in the examination, but her result was  deliberately withheld for an oblique motive which compelled  the first appellant to approach the High Court of Allahabad by  way of Miscellaneous Application in the pending Writ Petition  No. 9150/2001 for issuing necessary directions for declaration  of her result. The High Court vide order dated 19.9.2001  directed the College authorities to declare the results of MBBS  Final Professional Part-I Examination, 2001 and the result of  the scrutiny of Pharmacology of Second Professional  Examination, 2000 and further to permit the first appellant to  appear in Final MBBS Part-II Examination and to declare the  result of the said examination as well.  By Orders dated  7.01.2002/16.01.2002, the High Court directed the college  authorities to produce answer books of Pharmacology of the  first appellant.  On 4.03.2002, the High Court got the answer  books of the first appellant re-examined by the Head of  Department of Pharmacology of Motilal Nehru Medical College,  Allahabad in the court itself.  On re-examination of the papers,  the first appellant secured good marks in both the papers and  accordingly, the college authorities were directed to declare her  results forthwith.  It appears that the orders/directions of the  High Court were not complied with which gave rise to the first  appellant to file contempt of court proceedings against the  college authorities.  The High Court vide order dated 9.4.2002  directed the College authorities to be present personally in the  Court but in the meantime on 22.04.2002 the result was  declared and for no valid reasons, the first appellant was  declared failed in Surgery Practical Examination.   The first  appellant left with no other remedy, but to approach the High  Court by means of another writ petition.  The High Court  directed the second respondent to produce before it the  tabulation chart of Surgery Practical Examination of all the  students including the first appellant.  The High Court on  12.11.2002 having noticed serious allegations of mala fide,  restrained Dr. P. Mahalingam \026 the second respondent from  interfering in and conducting examination of the first  appellant and further directed that the practical examination  of the first appellant be got conducted through Agra Medical  College in which the first appellant was declared pass with  70% marks. 6.      The appellants alleged that having miserably failed in all  attempts to ruin the career of the first appellant, Dr.  Mahalingam \026 the second respondent on 04.04.2003 got a  false and frivolous report lodged under Sections 504 and 506  IPC through his yes-man and associate \026 Dr. Anil Tomar  against all the members of the appellants\022 family whereupon  Case Crime No. 286 of 2003 was registered against them.   Both the appellants and their parents filed Writ Petition No.  1923 of 2003 seeking for quashing the said criminal case and  the High Court vide order dated 17.4.2003, stayed the arrest

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 16  

of the appellants and their parents during the investigation of  the above-said  FIR.  The Police rushed to file charge sheet  without making any fair and effective investigation against  which Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 8542 of 2003  under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the parents of the  appellants in the High Court for quashing the charge sheet  and the High Court vide its order stayed further proceedings  pending before the trial court.   7.      On a complaint made by the father of the appellants and  on intervention of the District Magistrate and S.S.P.,  Ghaziabad, Dr. P. Mahalingam \026 the second respondent on  28.02.2003 allegedly, gave 5 cheques for Rs. 5 lakhs each  against the loan amount and two demand drafts of Rs. 2.5 lacs  each on account of payment of the accrued interest.  It was  stated that one cheque was dishonoured on 18.10.2003 and  the father of appellants preferred a Criminal Case No. 7272 of  2003 against Dr. Mahalingam \026 the second respondent under  Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Court of  Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad wherein by  order dated 24.1.2004 the second respondent and others were  summoned as accused persons.  On filing of the above  criminal case by the father of the appellants, the second  respondent got infuriated and became more and more  vindictive against the appellants and their family members. 8.      The appellants then stated that the tape recorded  conversation held between the father of the appellants and Dr.  M.K. Shrivastava, Principal of the College, would clearly reveal  that Dr. P. Mahalingam \026 the second respondent is the main  person instrumental in victimisation and harassing of the  appellants.  On 2.5.2004 and 2.6.2004 the appellants were  allegedly assaulted mercilessly by the second respondent, Anil  Somania, Station Officer, P.S. Vijay Nagar and their drivers.   The first appellant was molested and she had been threatened  to be kidnapped, raped and even murdered whereas the Dr.  Manish Kumar- the second appellant, brother of the first  appellant was assaulted with kicks, fists, shoes and sticks.   They got themselves medically examined at the Government  M.M.G. Hospital, Ghaziabad and on refusal to register their  FIR by the Police of Police Station, Ghaziabad, the appellants  proceeded to file an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.  before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad seeking direction  to the police to register the FIR and hold proper investigation  in the case.  Though the said application was initially rejected  by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, but in view of the order of the  IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, the  Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 3.10.2005 directed  the concerned Police Station Officer to register the case  against the culprits.  9.      Aggrieved thereby, Dr. P. Mahalingam \026 the second  respondent filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the High Court  which was dismissed vide order dated 9.11.2005.  In  pursuance of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated  03.10.2005 and subsequent order of the High Court dated  9.11.2005, FIR at the instance of Dr. Monica bearing Crime  No. 425 of 2005 was registered on 28.11.2005 under Sections  147/323/342/352/354/427/504 and 506 IPC at the Police  Station against Dr. P. Mahalingam and other persons named  in the complaint. 10.     The appellants stated that as citizens of the United States  of America, they sent a representation to the President of USA  whereupon White House responded and sent a letter dated  August 16th 2004 informing the appellants that White House  had decided to send the petition to the Department of State to  address the grievances of the appellants.   Further, by letter  dated August 30, 2004 the appellants were also informed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 16  

about the steps having been taken by the USA.

11.     The appellants also stated that even on issuance of  satisfactory completion certificate of internship to the first  appellant duly signed by all the Professors and Heads of  Departments, Medical Officers and Dean of Faculty on  18/19.3.2004, the Principal of the College who was simply  required to countersign internship completion certificate,  deliberately for no valid reason entered the word  \021unsatisfactory\022  by antedating it as 16.01.2004 at the behest  of Dr. P. Mahalingam \026 the second respondent as a result  thereof the first appellant could not get the MBBS Degree for  getting herself enrolled with Medical Council of India nor she  could appear in any Post Graduation Examination. Aggrieved  by the action of the Principal of the College, the first appellant  preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 19069 of 2004 in the High  Court of Allahabad and the High Court vide its order dated   11.01.2005, recorded that the certificate issued by the  competent authorities was deliberately antedated.  The learned  single Judge of the High Court by order dated 17.2.2005  disposed of the said writ petition as counsel for Dr. P.  Mahalingam \026 the second respondent produced a fresh  certificate reporting therein that the first appellant had  completed her internship satisfactorily and therefore was  eligible for MBBS Degree.  The first appellant being aggrieved  against the order by which other reliefs prayed for in the writ  petition were declined, filed a Special Appeal in the High Court  which was allowed on 31.3.2005, directing the authorities  concerned to issue other required certificates, i.e. character  certificate, pass certificate and attempt certificate to the first  appellant.  12.     In compliance to the order of the High Court Dr. P.  Mahalingam \026 the second respondent issued character  certificate, pass certificate and attempt certificate to the fist  appellant but with wrong dates and incomplete particulars.   The first appellant again was forced to file Contempt Petition  No. 4057 of 2005 against the second respondent praying for  taking legal proceedings against him for violation of the court\022s  order.  The High Court on 23.12.2005 recorded the following  order:- \023This court without going into the controversy  is not issuing any notice on the contempt  application at this stage and disposes of this  application with a direction to the opposite  party to consider the request made by the  applicant in her representation within three  weeks from the date of the production of a  certified copy of this order.  If the grievance of  the applicant is found to be genuine, in that  event, fresh certificates shall be issued  immediately.\024          13.     The appellants stated that Dr. P. Mahalingam \026 the  second respondent found a good ally in Anil Somania the then  Station Officer of P.S. Vijay Nagar whose daughter was also  studying in the same College and thus was able to intensify  the harassment of the appellants and got initiated criminal  proceedings against them under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C.   This time again on being approached by the appellants, the  High Court by order dated 25.11.2005 stayed those  proceedings.   14.     Having failed in all earlier attempts to harm the careers  of the appellants, the second respondent allegedly in collusion  with Anil Somani, SHO, instigated Dr. I.M. Sharma, Warden of  Girls Hostel of the College the third respondent herein and got

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 16  

a false and frivolous FIR No. 297/2005 (Case Crime No.  412/2005) dated 5.10.2005 registered against the appellants  under Section 452/323/504 and 506 IPC at P.S. Vijay Nagar.   The appellants filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 11192  of  2005 in the High Court and the High Court on 7.11.2005  passed the following order:- \023Having regard to the facts and circumstances  of the case, the arrest of the petitioners for the  offences indicate above is stayed till the  submission of the report on the following  conditions:-  

1.      That the petitioners will not be  arrested in respect of the said crime  number during the pendency of the  investigation provided they cooperate  with the investigation.

2.      The stay of arrest will operate only if  certified copy of this order along with  one self attested copy of the writ  petition is served upon the  investigation officer within fifteen  days from today.

3.      The stay of arrest will cease to operate  if it is decided to submit a charge  sheet after investigation.

4.      Because the complainant has not  been head at this stage, therefore, it  will be open to the complainant or the  investigation officer who has not been  given opportunity to file counter  affidavit or any other party aggrieved  to apply in this writ petition for  recall/modification of this order, if  any misstatement is found in the  material facts stated in the writ  petition or other legally valid ground  which may be available to the party  so applying.

5.      The investigating officer will make all  possible efforts to conclude the  investigation within three months of  the date on which a certified copy of  this order is served upon him. The SSP Ghaziabad is directed to hand over  investigation of this case to a Gazetted Officer  not below to the rank of Deputy  Superintendent of Police.\024            15.     Leaving no stone unturned to fulfill his vengeance and  revengeful attitude against the appellants, the second  respondent got one more frivolous FIR bearing Crime No. 21 of  2006 dated 14.1.2006 registered against them under Sections  452/323/336/504/506 and 427  IPC at P.S. Vijay Nagar at  the behest of  Rajendra Kuntal - Head Security Guard of Dr. P.  Mahalingam.  The complaint of Rajendra Kuntal was sent  through Ram Murti Mani Kandan, Personal Manager of the  second respondent, to the Police Station.   The appellants were  arrested on 15.01.2006 from their house and lodged in jail.   They were released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge on  31.01.2006.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 16  

                                                                        16.     Owing to constant threats and victimisation by Dr. P.  Mahalingam in collusion with the local police, the appellants  filed Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 1947 of 2006 praying for  CBI investigation into the matter.  On 22.07.2006, the High  Court passed the following order:- \023Considering the facts and circumstances of  the case, we are of the view that the correct  position of the investigation of the cases be  also brought on record.  Therefore, learned  AGA is directed to file counter affidavit  annexing the copies of the statement of the  prosecution witnesses recorded under Section  161 Cr.P.C. in the cases referred to above.   The case be listed on 27.3.2006.  

The Senior Superintendent of Police,  Ghaziabad shall look into the grievances of the  petitioners regarding the ill- treatment/humiliation/harassment etc. by the  local police and the respondents/accused  concerned and ensure adequate security to  them and their family members in all respects  and submit the compliance report on or before  10th March, 2006. Let a copy of this order be furnished to the  learned AGA free of cost by tomorrow for  intimating the authority concerned.\024       17.     The appellants alleged that Sub-Inspector J.K. Gangwar  ought not to have conducted the investigation of the cases, as  in the earlier proceedings, the High Court made observations  that he was under the influence of SHO Anil Somani.  S.I.  Gangwar without proper and fair investigation hurriedly  prepared and filed charge sheet in the trial court on the basis  of which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate proceeded to  take cognizance of the offences against the appellants. 18.      The appellants then preferred two separate petitions  referred to above under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of  the said FIRs and entrusting further investigation of the cases  to CBI.  The High Court by impugned order dated 24.08.2006  dismissed the petition.  Hence, the appellants are before us in  this joint appeal by way of special leave.  19.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and  meticulously examined the entire material on record.   20.     Shri Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel appearing  for the appellants, assailed the judgment of the High Court   inter alia contending that the First Information Reports and  further proceedings initiated thereto by the trial court against  the appellants are vitiated on the following grounds:- (i)     that the allegations made in the FIRs and  evidence collected during investigation on their  face are so absurd and inherently improbable  that no prudent person can ever arrive at a  conclusion that there are sufficient grounds for  proceeding against the appellants-students of  MBBS course for the commission of the alleged  offences registered at the instance of the  employees of the College; (ii)    that the appellants\022 case is fully covered by the  principles laid down by this Court in the case  of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal (1995) Suppl.  SCC 335 and the High Court has misapplied  the ratio of the said case in the facts of the  present case;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 16  

(iii)   that the High Court has failed to appreciate  that there was an apparent nexus between Dr.  P. Mahalingam \026the second respondent and  two informers, who in collusion with the local  police, have launched two false and vexatious  criminal cases against the appellants in  continuation of series of acts of victimization  and harassment first to spoil their future  career; (iv)    the High Court has failed to appreciate that  the material on record leaves no room of doubt  that the Criminal Cases were initiated at the  instance of Dr. P. Mahalingam \026 the second  respondent due to mala fide intention,  vengeance and animosity in continuation of  his designs to misappropriate the loan amount  advanced to him by the father of the appellant  for establishment of the College;   (v)     that the High Court has failed to appreciate  that Dr. P. Mahalingam who happens to be the  Chairman and Sole Trustee of the Maharaj Ji  Educational Trust which is running the  Santosh Medical College for imparting medical  education at the Under Graduate Level, which  is one of the noblest professional qualification  that one can impart on human beings, has  been indulging in acts of omissions and  commissions which are wholly unexpected of  him.  After having failed in all his repeated  attempts to spoil the career  of the appellants,  the second respondent adopted  a vindictive  attitude towards the appellants and the facts  of the present case clearly establish that the  allegations made in the complaints are not  only false but are the result of mala fides of Dr.  P. Mahalingam. 21.     In opposition, Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned Additional  Solicitor General appearing on behalf of CBI \026 the fourth  respondent, urged before us that acceptability of mala fides  against second respondent is a matter of trial and that it is not  a case where charge sheet prima facie does not disclose  commission of offences and that the defence pleaded by the  appellants, is in fact, has to be considered by the courts below  during the trial of the cases pending against them.     22.     Shri Shail Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing on  behalf of the State of U.P., supported the contention of the  learned counsel for CBI and submitted that since the  investigation of the cases having been completed, charge  sheets filed and charges framed by the trial court against the  appellants, therefore, now the trial is completely in the domain  of the trial court and certainly it is not a proper stage of  quashing the FIRs and charge sheets filed under Section 173  Cr.P.C.  In support, reliance is placed on Som Mittal v.  Government of Karnataka (2008) 3 SCC 753; State of H.P.  v. Prithi Chand (1996) 2 SCC 37 and State of Orissa & Anr.  v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo (2005) 13 SCC 540 to contend that  the inherent power of the High Court for quashing criminal  proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with  circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and  that the present case does not fall in that category.   23.     Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing  on behalf of Dr. P. Mahalingam \026 the second respondent,  vehemently contended that the appellants have concocted  contradictory stories in different proceedings regarding their  alleged harassment by the College authorities inasmuch as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 16  

they initially took the plea that they were allegedly being  harassed by Dr. M.K. Srivastava \026 Principal of the College  because he wanted the second appellant to marry his  daughter but in subsequent proceedings the appellants  changed their earlier stand and took up another false plea that  they were being harassed at the behest of the second  respondent from whom their father demanded the return of  loan amount of Rs. 25 lakhs.  He submitted that it was proved  on record that loan amount of Rs. 25 lakhs has already been  paid to the father of the appellants by way of cheques and  bank drafts way back in the year 2003 itself.  Mr. Venugopal  has brought to our notice the relevant paragraphs of counter  affidavit filed by the second respondent in opposition to the  present appeal in which the allegations of the appellants that  they were intentionally got failed in the examinations at the  instance of the second respondent has been categorically  denied.  The second respondent stated that the first appellant  had failed repeatedly due to her poor performance in the  examination and definitely not due to any amount of  harassment or acts of victimization by him as alleged by the  first appellant, whereas the second appellant could  successfully complete his MBBS Course and, accordingly, all  certificates like Internship Certificate, Passing Certificate and  Character Certificate were issued to him on successful  completion of the course.  He submitted that the record of the  College would reveal that despite a series of complaints  regarding the act of indiscipline of the first appellant, he  always took a lenient view so that she should not suffer in her  studies and he has always extended full support to every  student including the first appellant.  He submitted that the  FIRs were registered against the appellants by the employees  of the College in their personal capacity for the commission of  the alleged offences by them and their allegations that the said  cases were registered at his behest, are absolutely false,  baseless and unfounded.  He then submitted that the High  Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.  has found prima facie case against the appellants and  recorded well-reasoned order which is based upon proper  appreciation of the settled proposition of law, this Court,  therefore, shall restrain itself from interfering with the  impugned order of the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction  under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.  24.    Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for Dr.  M.K. Shrivastava \026 Principal of the College and Dr. I.M.  Sharma \026 Warden of Girls Hostel (an informant of Case Crime  No. 412 of 2005), contended that not only the police found  prima facie case but the court below also found sufficient  material against the appellants on the basis of which  cognizance of the offences alleged against them in Case Crime  No. 412 of 2005 was taken and the trial court now has framed  charges against the appellants.  He next contended that the  mere fact that senior police officer\022s daughter was a student of  the respondent-College by itself would not lead to the  conclusion that investigation of the cases registered against  the appellants was tainted or not being conducted properly  and fairly by the Investigation Officer.  He supported the order  of the High Court which, according to him, is valid and legal  both on facts and law.   25.     Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and  having noticed and considered the proposition of law laid  down by this Court in a number of decisions, the learned  Single Judge of the High Court observed:      \023The contents of the report registered as Case  Crime No. 412 of 2005 under Sections, 452, 323,  504, 506 427 IPC at Police Station Vijay Nagar,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 16  

Ghaziabad, transpires that on 5.10.2005 at about  6 p.m. Dr. Monica Kumar and Dr. Manish Kumar  entered in the house of Dr. Indra Mohini Sharma,  H. No. 14, Sector-12, Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad  with knife and brick bats.  They started hurling  abuses to her saying that she is much close to Dr.  P. Mahalingam.  She was also slapped and was  also threatened that her children would be  kidnapped and killed.  On her cries, security men  namely, Rajveer, Prempal and some of the  students of the College, came for her rescue.   Some of the household goods were also damaged  by them.  The victim (Dr. Indra Mohini Sharma)  who is teacher in Santosh Medical College under  Section 161 of the Code supported the F.I.R.  version and mentioned that both the accused  threatened and slapped her.  She was rescued by  the security men Rajveer and Prem Pal.  Police also  recorded statement of these two security men also  of Gaurav Pandey, student of the College who  reiterated about the incident.  For the other  incident dated 14.1.2006 report was lodged as  Case Crime No.21 of 2006 under Sections 452,  323, 336, 504, 506, 420 IPC at Police Station Vijay  Nagar, Ghaziabad, against Dr. Monica Kumar and  Dr. Manish Kumar as they are said to have beaten  the security man Rajendra Kuntal and also  damaged the College properties.  The investigating  officer has recorded the statement of Rajendra  Kuntal and other security personnel namely  Prempal and Manoj Kumar.  Both the witnesses  have supported the FIR version.                     It may be mentioned that in exercise of the  proceedings under Section 482 of the Code, this  Court has to prima facie ascertain about the  existence of the sufficient ground for proceeding  against the accused.  For limited purpose the court  can evaluate the material and documents on  record but it cannot appreciate the evidence so as  to access the credibility of the statement of the  witnesses recorded in the course of investigation.   Further it is not required to appreciate the  evidence to find out whether the materials  produced are sufficient or not for convicting the  accused.  In the case of Chand Dhawan v.  Jawahar Lal (1992) 3 SCC 317 it was observed by  the Apex Court that when the material relied upon  by a party are required to be proved, no inference  can be drawn on the basis of materials to conclude  the FIR/complaint version to be unacceptable.   The scope of exercise of the power under Section  482 of the Code and categories of the cases where  High Court may exercise its power under it relating  to cognizable offences to prevent the abuse of the  process of court or otherwise to secure the ends of  justice were set in detail by the Apex Court in the  case of [State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal 1995  Suppl. I SCC 335] they have been enumerated as  under:- (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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 16  

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 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.  

Here allegations made in the report and the  evidence so collected in the course of  investigation construe a cognizable offence, it  would not fall in any category of the case  enumerated above, call for the exercise of extra  ordinary powers or inherent power quashing  the charge sheet submitted in the above-noted  cases.\024

26.     The special leave petition came up before this Court on  20.11.2006 on which date it was ordered:      \023Issue notice.                 On an oral prayer made by the learned  counsel, issue notice to Union of India  confined to the question as to whether the  investigation be done by the C.B.I. in the event

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 16  

the Court finds it necessary to do so.               The Court below may frame charges  wherefor the petitioners shall make them  available on the next date fixed.  Thereafter,  further proceedings shall remain stayed.                Four weeks\022 time is granted for filing  counter affidavit.  Two weeks\022 time, thereafter,  is granted for filing rejoinder.\024       27.     The parties have exchanged their counter affidavits and  rejoinders.  Indisputably, there is no quarrel with the well- settled principles of law that while exercising powers under  Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court does not function as a  court of appeal or revision.  Inherent jurisdiction under the  Section though has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and  with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the  tests specifically laid in the Section itself.   It is to be exercised  ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the  administration of which courts exist.  When the complaint is  sought to be quashed it is permissible to look into the  materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and  whether any offence is made out even if the allegation are  accepted in toto. 28.     In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (1960) 3 SCR 388, this  Court summarises some categories of cases in which inherent  power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:- (i)     Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal  bar against the institution or continuance e.g.  want of sanction; (ii)    Where the allegations in the first information  report or complaint taken at their face value and  accepted in their entirety do not constitute the  offence alleged. (iii)   Where the allegations constitute an offence, but  there is no legal evidence adduced or the  evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to  prove the charge.

29.     The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.  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 some detail by this Court which has  been dealt with by the High Court in State of Haryana v.  Bhajan Lal (1992) 2 Suppl. I SCC 335.  In the said case, a note  of caution to the effect was, however, added that the power  should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection  and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The illustrative  categories indicated by this Court are earlier extracted in the  order of the High Court. 30.     We may reiterate and emphasise that the powers  possessed by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are  very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great  caution in its exercise.  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 16  

course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to  cases in which the High Court will exercise its jurisdiction of  quashing the proceeding at any stage. [See Janata Dal v.  H.S. Chowdhury (1992) 4 SCC 305;    Raghubir Saran Dr.  v. State of Bihar 1964 (2) SCR 336; Kurukshetra  University v. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 451; and  Zhandu Pharmaceuticals Works Limited and Others v.  Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Another 2005 (1) SCC 122].   31.     In fact, the question of mala fides in a case like the  present is not at all relevant.  If the complaint which is made  is correct and offence has been committed which will have to  be established in a court of law, it is of no significance that the  complainant is a person who is inimical or that he is guilty of  mala fides.  If the ingredients which establish the commission  of the offence or misconduct exist then, the prosecution  cannot fail merely because there was an animus of the  complainant or the prosecution against the accused.   Allegations of mala fides may be relevant while judging the  correctness of the allegations or while examining the evidence.   But the mere fact that the complainant is guilty of mala fides,  would be no ground for quashing the proceedings. [See State  of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri (1996) 1 SCC  542; Zhandu Pharmaceuticals Works Limited and Others  v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Another 2005 (1) SCC 122;  State of Bihar & Anr. v. J.A.C. Saldanah (1980) 1 SCC  544; State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo 2005 (13) SCC  540].  There may be some exceptions to the said rule but we  are not concerned with such a case.  32.     This Court in the latest decision has held that where  investigation was completed, charge sheet had been filed and  charges are framed, the High Court should not ordinarily  embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability of offences to  sustain the allegations made in the complaint which is the  function of the trial court. [see Som Mittal v. Government of  Karnataka (2008) 2 SCC 753]  33.     Having given our careful consideration to the  submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and  in the backdrop of the facts and in the light of principles of law  highlighted above, we have examined the entire material  placed on record by the parties in the case on hand.   Indisputably, both the appellants took admission in the MBBS  course in the session 1996-97 in Santosh Medical College and  Hospital under the NRI quota against handsome payments of  US $50,000 and US$49,700 each in addition to hostel charges  and security deposit, i.e. Rs. 75,000/- and Rs. 45,000/-  respectively for one year.  In April 2000, Dr. P. Mahalingam \026  the second respondent, Chairman/Managing Director of the  Medical College took a loan of Rs. 25 lakhs on interest at the  rate of 11.5 % from Dr. Narendra Kumar, father of the  appellants.  As noticed in the earlier part of this judgment, a  series of civil writ petitions and criminal proceedings besides  contempt proceedings were initiated by the appellants in  which allegations of mala fides, acts of victimization and  physical and mental harassment were alleged against the  second respondent in his personal capacity and also as a  Chairman/Managing Director of the College Trust.  The  appellants filed application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.  before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the basis of which case  under Section 347/502/506/342/352/ 354 and 427 IPC has  been registered against the defaulters.  The second respondent  is said to have challenged the order of the Magistrate but he  could not succeed.  The appellants are facing trial of Case  Crime No. 412/2005 lodged against them by Dr. Indra Mohini  Sharma, third respondent, under Sections 458/323/504/506  IPC and Case Crime No. 21/2006 registered on 14.01.2006 in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 16  

Police Station Vijay Nagar at the behest of Rajender Kuntal- respondent, Security Guard of the institution, under Sections  452/323/336/504/506 and 427 IPC.  The above-stated cases  pertained to the period when the appellants were students and  studying MBBS Course in the College.  The trial of the said  cases at present is at initial stage and further proceedings  thereof are stayed by this Court.  The record would reveal that  during the investigation of Case Crime No. 412/2005 for  offences punishable under Sections 453, 323, 504, 506 IPC,  the appellants were arrested by the police on 15.01.2006 from  their house and were lodged in jail.  Their bail applications  were adjourned four times by the learned Magistrate, who had  called for case diary and medical reports, which the  prosecution did not produce.  It was only on the adjourned  date, i.e. 18.01.2006 when written medical report of doctor  from Batra Hospital, New Delhi, was filed before the learned  Magistrate reporting some injuries have received by  complainant Rajender Kuntal and on the basis of the said  medical report, Section 308 IPC came to be added in the said  Crime Case.  The learned Magistrate rejected the bail  application of the second appellant in that case.  The second  appellant filed a bail application before the learned Sessions  Judge on 21.01.2006 which was adjourned to 31.01.2006 on  that date the second appellant could be released on bail. The  first respondent-State of U.P. has filed with their affidavit  translated true copies of apology letters dated 13.04.2004 and  02.05.2004 respectively said to have been written by the  appellants and addressed to the SHO, Vijay Nagar P.S.,  Ghaziabad, the contents whereof read as under:-

\023Tomorrow morning 9am, myself and my daughter  Monica Kumar and Manish Kumar will go to SP  City office.  So we won\022t go to the Mess of Santosh  Medica College and we won\022t abuse any employee.   We apologize for the quarrel happened today  evening in the Mess with Mr. Krishanmoorthy. Sd/- Monica Kumar Sd/- Manish Kumar                                            Sd/-                                                              Savitri                                                       K-8 Sector 12,                                                         Pratap Vihar                                                         Dt. 13.04.04

                               Sd/-                         G. Krishnamoorthy                                 Drt. 13.04.04                                  Sd/-                         R. Manikandan                                         Dt. 13.04.04\024

\023SO, Vijay Nagar Police Station, Ghaziabad.

Ref.  

From today onwards we won\022t stand in front of  the police car.  Neither open our lights.

I am sorry for misconduct today.

                                                             Sd/-                                                      Monica Kumar                                                         Dt. 2-5-2004    

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 16  

                                                                                                                            Sd/-                                                      Manish Kumar                                                        Dt. 2-5-2004\024     

34.     The entire details of the facts of the present case do  indicate that the appellants during their study of MBBS  Course had some problems with the second respondent; some  staff of the College and the then SHO of P.S. Vijay Nagar,  whose daughter was also studying in the same College.  The  record would reveal that both the appellants being NRI  candidates have undergone physical and mental agony and  torture during their students\022 career in pursuing the MBBS  course.  They had spent most of their precious time in  litigation in the courts fighting for their genuine and legitimate  claims.  They may be lacking in some indiscipline activities in  the College for which they have been facing criminal  proceedings for the past about 3 years.  Looking to the entire  backdrop of the peculiar facts of countless incidents having  faced by the appellants during their primary life as MBBS  students and the nature of the offences alleged against them  in the above mentioned crime cases lodged by Mrs. Indra  Mohini Sharma and Rajender Kuntal in Police Station Vijay  Nagar, Ghaziabad and allegations and counter allegations in  various complaints made by the parties against each other  and coupled with the tenor and contents of the apology  tendered by the appellants, we are of the view that it is a fit  case where we should exercise our jurisdiction under Article  142 of the Constitution of India.  We are conscious of the well- settled law laid down by this Court in the above referred   decisions and many more that in case of persons against  whom prima facie case is made out and charge sheet is filed in  the competent court, it is that court which will then deal with  the case on merits in accordance with law and the High Court  should not except in extraordinary circumstances exercise its  jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. so as to quash the  prosecution proceedings after they have been lodged.  35.     Under Article 142 of the Constitution this Court in  exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such  order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any ’cause’  or ’matter’ pending before it. The expression "cause" or  "matter" would include any proceeding pending in court and it  would cover almost every kind of proceeding in court including  civil or criminal.  Though there is no provision like Section 482  of the Criminal Procedure Code conferring express power on  the Supreme Court to quash or set aside any criminal  proceedings pending before a criminal court to prevent abuse  of process of the court, but the inherent power of this Court  under Article 142 coupled with the plenary and residuary  powers under Articles 32 and 136 embraces power to quash  criminal proceedings pending before any court to do complete  justice in the matter before this Court.  If the court is satisfied  that the proceedings in a criminal case are being utilised for  oblique purposes or if the same are continued on  manufactured and false evidence or if no case is made out on  the admitted facts, it would be in the ends of justice to set  aside or quash the criminal proceedings.  Once this Court is  satisfied that the criminal proceedings amount to abuse of  process of court, it would quash such proceedings to ensure  justice. This Court’s power under Article 142(1) to do  "complete justice" is entirely of different level and of a different  quality.  What would be the need of \023complete justice\024 in a  cause or matter would depend upon the facts and  circumstances of each case and while exercising that power

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 16  

the Court would take into consideration the express provisions  of a substantive statute. Any prohibition or restriction  contained in ordinary laws cannot act as a limitation on the  constitutional power of this Court.  Once this Court has seisin  of a cause or matter before it, it has power to issue any order  or direction to do "complete justice" in the matter. 36.     While considering the nature and ambit of its own power  under this Article, this Court observed that it was advisable to  leave its power undefined and uncatalogued so that it remains  elastic enough to be molded to suit the given situation; even  where no alternative remedy is efficacious due to lapse of time.  [see Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P)  Ltd. [(1996) 4 SCC 622] relying on Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra  (1995) 2 SCC 584 and Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kurien  E. Kalathil (2000) 6 SCC 293).   The power to do complete  justice under this Article is, in a way, corrective power, which  gives preference to equity over law.  It is a residuary power,  supplementary and complementary to the powers specially  conferred by the statutes to do complete justice between the  parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so.  It is  intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice.                           (emphasis supplied) 37.     In this view of the matter, in order to do complete justice  to the parties in the backdrop of the peculiar facts of this case  and other circumstances noticed hereinbefore and also taking  into consideration the future career of the appellants who by  this time might have joined the noble medical profession and  owing to the reasons and observations above stated, this  appeal is allowed as a result thereof the order of the High  Court impugned in this appeal is set aside subject to the  directions contained herein. 38.     Mr. K. K. Venugopal and Mr. P. P. Rao at one stage of the  hearing very fairly suggested that keeping in view the  relationship of a teacher and taught and having regard to the  peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the concerned  respondents would be satisfied if an apology is tendered and  some amount of compensation is awarded in favour of the  third respondents-informants of Crime No.412 of 2005 and of  Crime No.21 of 2006. 39.     We, having regard to the peculiar facts and  circumstances of this case, are of the opinion that it is a fit  case where we should exercise our discretionary jurisdiction  under Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to bring  the dispute between the parties to an end.  We, however, are of  the opinion that as the appellants, at the relevant time, were  students, no amount of compensation be directed to be paid.   They must, however, file a written apology in the courts where  the proceedings are pending.   40.     Consequently, criminal proceedings arising out of Case  Crime No. 412/2005 registered at the behest of Dr. Indra  Mohini Sharma under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 and 427  IPC and proceedings of Case Crime No. 21/2006 under  Sections 452, 323, 336, 504, 506 and 427 IPC filed by  Rajender Kuntal at Police Station Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad and  charges said to have been framed by the trial court based  upon the above-said criminal cases against the appellants  shall also stand quashed.  41.     Before parting with this judgment, we make it clear that  any observations made by us in this judgment may not be  construed as an expression of opinion on the genuineness,  authenticity, validity and legality of the allegations and  counter allegations levelled by the parties against each other  in different proceedings and we have closed the proceedings of  the above-mentioned FIRs initiated against the appellants  mainly in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 16  

Constitution.