NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.962 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No. 831 of 2007)

Ram Babu                                                                           ……….Appellant

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.                                     ……..Respondent

JUDGMENT

H.L. Dattu,J.  

1)   This is a petition for special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the  

Constitution from the judgment and order passed by  the High Court of  

Madhya Pradesh,  Bench at  Gwalior,  in M.Cr.C. No.2216 of 2006, dated  

2.11.2006.  We grant special leave and dispose of this appeal.

2)   By the judgment and the order impugned, High Court under Section 482  

of the Code of Criminal Procedure has quashed the complaint as also the  

summons issued to the accused persons (Respondents Nos. 2 and 3) by the  

Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gohad, District Bhind.

3)   The  trial  arose  out  of  a  private  complaint  filed  by  the  complainant  

against the accused persons for offences under Section 420, 467, 471, 323,  

1

506B  and  120-B  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  and  Section  3(2)(5)  of  the  

Scheduled  Caste  Scheduled  Tribes  Prohibition  of  Atrocities  Act  (herein  

after called the “S.C.S.T. Act”). The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,  

Gohad, has taken cognizance and has issued summons against the accused  

persons.  

4)   In order to appreciate the stance of the complaint,  it  is necessary to  

understand  the  backdrop  of  the  complaint.  On  25.4.2006,  the  appellant  

made a complaint, inter-alia alleging that his sons, namely, Devendra Pratap  

and Munendra  Pratap  produced petroleum products  from polythene,  and  

they  demonstrated  their  invention  at  different  levels  by  participating  in  

various  Science  Competitions  and  also  received  recognition  and  reward  

from  various  organisations.  On  5.12.2005,  accused  Sanjay  Singh  and  

Jayendra Singh requested the complainant’s sons to hand over the photos of  

the Model for production of Petrol from Polythene to them, so that they can  

get it published in newspapers. The complainant’s sons  conceded to their  

request, but to their surprise, accused Sanjay Singh and Jayendra Singh got  

the  invention  published  in  their  own  name  and  affixed  their  own  

photographs, for taking direct or indirect benefits, by committing forgery. It  

is  further alleged in the complaint,  that,  the newspaper reporters,  Shyam  

Vajpai  and  Karan  Singh  of  “Dainik  Swadesh”  and  “Nav  Bharat”,  

respectively,  conspired  with  the  accused  and published the  news on the  

2

basis of forged documents, without inquiring whether the same are genuine  

or not.   

5)   It is further stated, that, when the complainant’s sons asked the accused  

for return of the photos of the model, the accused persons abused and used  

names like CHAMRA etc. and also threatened to kill them. The appellant  

filed complaint with regard to cheating before the Senior Police Officers  

and also before the other Government agencies, but that did not yield any  

result. It is further stated that on the request made by them under Right to  

Information  Act,  2005,  from  the  concerned  authorities  they  have  been  

informed  that the accused Sanjay Singh and Jayendra Singh did not make  

any  model  and  did  not  participate  in  any  competition  and  it  was  also  

revealed that, the accused persons have received prize money of Rs.10,000/-  

from the State Government on the basis of false information. Therefore, it is  

alleged in the complaint  that the accused persons in criminal conspiracy  

with each other cheated the complainant and his sons.  

6)  The Learned Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance of the complaint  

against accused Sanjay Singh, Jayendra Singh and Rajendra Singh, Shyam  

Vajpai and Karan Singh (Respondents Nos. 2 and 3) under IPC and S.C.S.T  

Act, has issued summons through arrest warrants. Aggrieved by the order so  

passed, respondents nos. 2 and 3 had approached the High Court by filing a  

petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  

3

7)   It was argued before the High Court by the Learned Counsel for the  

respondents No. 2 & 3 that the allegations made by the complainant in the  

complaint  filed,  do  not  disclose  a  cognizable  offence,   justifying  any  

investigation nor does it disclose any offence either under the provisions of  

I.P.C. or S.C.S.T Act and, therefore, the learned Magistrate was not correct  

in taking cognizance of the complaint filed against respondents nos. 2 and  

3. Per Contra, it was argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that  

the learned Magistrate being prima facie convinced that the complaint filed  

and other materials produced does disclose  cognizable offence against the  

accused  persons,  has  taken  cognizance  of  the  complaint  and  has  issued  

summons and, therefore, there is no error in the order passed by the learned  

Magistrate.  

8)   The High Court after referring to the contentions canvassed by learned  

counsel for the parties, by its cryptic order has observed, that, considering  

the facts and circumstances of the case pleaded by the parties, the impugned  

order passed by the learned Magistrate is an abuse of the process of the  

court,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  taking  cognizance  against  the  petitioners  

(Respondents  Nos.  2  and  3  herein)  and,  accordingly,  has  quashed  the  

proceedings.  

9)   The issue involved in this case is, whether the High Court was justified  

in exercising its inherent power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to set aside the  

4

proceedings  taken  against  respondents  nos.  2  and  3  by  the  learned  

Magistrate for the offences alleged both under the provisions of IPC and  

S.C.S.T. Act.

10) The  Learned  Counsel  for  the  appellant  would  submit,  that  the  

allegations  made in  the complaint  and the  materials  annexed,  shows the  

involvement of the respondents herein, for forgery and criminal conspiracy  

and also committing atrocities on the appellant and his sons under Section  

3(2)(5) of Atrocities Act. It is also contended that there is a prima facie case  

against the respondents and therefore, the High Court was not justified in  

exercising its  inherent  power under Section 482,  Cr.P.C.   and could not  

have quashed the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate.  

11)The question at  this  stage,  is,  not  whether  there  was any truth  in  the  

allegations made, but the question is whether on the basis of the allegations,  

a cognizable offence or offences had been alleged to have been committed  

by the accused persons.

12)In the case of Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, (1983)  

1 SCC 1, this Court has clearly laid down that taking the allegations and the  

complaint  as  these  were,  without  adding  or  subtracting  anything,  if  no  

offence  was  made  out,  then  only  the  High  Court  would  be  justified  in  

quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the  

Code of Criminal Procedure.  

5

13)In the case of  State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335,  

this Court has observed:

         “We also give a note of caution to the effect that  the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should  be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection  and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court  will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as  to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the  allegations  made in  the  first  information report  or  the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent  powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the  court to act according to its whim or caprice.”

14)This view has also been reiterated by this Court in the case of Rupan Deol  

Bajaj  v.  K.  P.  S.  Gill  (1995)  6  SCC 194.  Also  in  the  case  of  State  of  

Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji  Kalpatri,  (1996) 1 SCC 542, this Court has  

taken  the  view  that  the  court  should  not,  except  in  extraordinary  

circumstances,  exercise  its  jurisdiction  under Section 482 CrPC so as  to  

quash the prosecution proceedings after they have been launched.

15)In  the  present  case  it  has  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  learned  Judicial  

Magistrate has taken cognizance of the complaint under the S.C.S.T. Act as  

well as under the Indian Penal Code.

16)The ground upon which the learned Judge seems to have quashed the  

order passed by the learned Magistrate against respondents nos. 2 and 3, is  

that the order so passed is an abuse of the process of the court.  To arrive at  

this conclusion, the learned Judge has not even taken pains to look into the  

6

complaint and other materials produced  before the learned Magistrate by  

the complainant.  

17)Therefore,  in our opinion, in the factual  matrix of this case,  the court  

should not have exercised its extraordinary power and inherent jurisdiction  

under  Section  482  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  and  quashed  the  

proceedings initiated by learned Magistrate.  Accordingly, we set aside the  

impugned order  passed by  the  High Court.   We now direct  the  learned  

Magistrate to complete the pending proceedings as expeditiously as possible  

and at  any rate,  within nine (9) months from the production of certified  

copy of this Court’s order by either of the parties.  We hasten to add, any  

observations made by us in the course of this order, is only for the purpose  

of disposal of this appeal and the observations made by us shall not be taken  

as an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case.

18)   Accordingly, appeal is disposed of.  No order as to costs.  

                                                                                     …………………………………J.                                                                                        [TARUN CHATTERJEE]

                                                                                     …………………………………J.                                                                                        [ H.L. DATTU ] New Delhi, May 08, 2009.

7