http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: STATE OF BIHAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SRI RAJENDRA AGRAWALLA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       18/01/1996

BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK (J) BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK (J) RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  JT 1996 (1)   601        1996 SCALE  (1)394

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T G.B. PATTANAIK, J.      Leave granted.      This appeal  by the State is directed against the order of the  Patna High  Court dated 5.3.1992, by which order the High Court  has quashed  the cognizance  taken  against  the respondent under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code.      Shri Uddai  Singh,  Sub-Inspector  of  Police,  Dhanbad Police  Station  was  on  duty  at  the  Police  Station  on 8.1.1992. At  5.15  P.M.  two  Constables  brought  a  truck bearing Registration  No. HRX-3125  along with  its  driver, Khalasi and  two other  persons and reported that they found the truck  coming speedly  and crossing the Railway gate and did not  stop even  though the  vehicle was  asked to  stop. They, therefore,  chased the  vehicle and  stopped the  same after some  time and  found that  the truck  has been loaded with pieces  of iron  tracks  which  were  the  property  of B.C.C.L. On  their enquiry  about the  documents, a  copy of challan  was  shown  but  suspecting  something  wrong  they brought the  truck with  the persons  to the Police Station. The Sub-Inspector  then found  on checking  that most of the iron loaded on the truck were the pieces of the track trolly used in  B.C.C.L. On  suspicion the  Sub-Inspector asked the driver who  told that  the truck  has been  loaded from  the factory of Rajendra Agarwalla, the respondent in this appeal and one  Surendra Agarwal,  proprietor of Associate Iron and Steel Company at Saraidhela has purchased the same. But they could not  produce any  document. He  therefore submitted  a report to  the Inspector-cum-Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station alleging  that the  accused persons  are  guilty  of offence under  Section 414 of I.P.C. and the said report was treated as  First Information  Report. After  investigation, charge sheet was filed against the respondent and five other persons on  21.1.1992. In  G.R. Case  No. 107  of 1992,  the learned Magistrate on perusal of the papers submitted by the police and  all other  relevant materials  took conizance of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

the  offence   in  question   on  1.2.1992.  The  respondent thereafter filed  application in  the Patna  High  Court  at Ranchi Bench  invoking the  jurisdiction of  the Court under Section 482  of the  Code of  Criminal Procedure praying for quashing  the   order  of  cognizance  taken  and  the  said application was registered as Criminal Case No. 475 of 1992. The learned  Judge by  the impugned order having quashed the cognizance taken  by the  Magistrate so far as respondent is concerned, the State has approached this Court.      Mr. B.B. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State contended that  the State  contended  that  the  High  Court exceeded its  jurisdiction under  Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure  by trying  to appreciate the evidence on record and  thereafter recording  the finding  that no prima facie case  has been  made out.  Mr. Singh further contended that   notwithstanding   the   well   recognised   principle enunciated by this Court that the power under Section 482 of the Code  of Criminal  Procedure should  be  exercised  very sparingly and  cautiously and  only when  the court comes to the conclusion  that there  has been an abuse of the process of the  court, but  in the  case in  hand the  learned Judge examined the  legality of the order of cognizance as a court of appeal  and as  such the  order  of  the  High  Court  is unsustainable in law. Mr. U.R. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for  the respondent  on the  other hand  contended that the  High Court having examined the material and having come to  the conclusion  that the materials on record do not make out  an offence  under Section  414 of the Indian Penal Code, the court was fully justified in quashing the order of cognizance and  the same  order should  not be interfered by this Court.      It has  been held  by this  Court in several cases that the inherent  power of  the court  under Section  482 of the Code of  Criminal Procedure  should be  very  sparingly  and cautiously used  only when the court comes to the conclusion that there  would be  manifest injustice  or there  would be abuse of  the process  of the  court, if  such power  is not exercised. So far as the order of cognizance by a Magistrate is concerned,  the inherent  power can be exercised when the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint together  with   the  other   materials   collected   during investigation taken  at their  face value, do not constitute the offence  alleged. At  that stage  it is not open for the court  either  to  shift  the  evidence  or  appreciate  the evidence and come to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out. In a recent Judgment of this Court to which one of us (Hon. K. Ramaswamy, J.) was a member it has been held, following the  earlier decision  in Mrs.  Rupan Deol Bajaj & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & anr. (JT 1995 (7) SC 299) :      ’It  is   thus  settled   law  that  the      exercise of  inherent power  of the High      Court is  an exceptional one. Great care      should be taken by the High court before      embarking     to      scrutinize     the      FIR/chargesheet/complaint.  In  deciding      whether the case is rarest of rare cases      to  scuttle   the  prosecution   in  its      inception, it  first has to get into the      grip   of   the   matter   whether   the      allegations constitute  the offence.  It      must be  remembered that  FIR is only an      imitation to  move the  machinery and to      investigate  into   cognizable  offence.      After the investigation is concluded and      the charge-sheet is laid the prosecution

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    produces the statements of the witnesses      recorded under  Section 161  of the Code      in support  of the charge-sheet. At that      stage it  is not  the  function  of  the      Court to  weigh the pros and cons of the      prosecution   case    or   to   consider      necessity of  strict compliance  of  the      provisions    which    are    considered      mandatory  and   its  effect   of   non-      compliance. It  would be  done after the      trial is  concluded. The  Court  has  to      prima facie  consider from the averments      in the  charge-sheet and  the statements      of witnesses  on the  record in  support      thereof   whether   court   could   take      cognizance  of   the  offence,  on  that      evidence and  proceed further  with  the      trial. If  it reaches  a conclusion that      no cognizable  offence is  made  out  no      further act  could  be  done  except  to      quash the  charge  sheet.  But  only  in      exceptional cases,  i.e.  in  rarest  of      rare cases  of mala  fide initiation  of      the   proceedings   to   wreak   private      vengeance process of criminal is availed      of in  laying a  complaint or FIR itself      does not  disclose at all any cognizable      offence -  the court may embark upon the      consideration thereof  and exercise  the      power.           When the  remedy under  Section 482      is available,  the High  Court would  be      loath and  circumspect to  exercise  its      extraordinary power  under  Article  226      since efficacious  remedy under  Section      482 of  the Code  is available. When the      Court exercises its inherent power under      Section  482   the  prime  consideration      should only  be whether  the exercise of      the power  would advance  the  cause  of      justice or  it would  be an abuse of the      process of the court. When investigation      officer  spends   considerable  time  to      collect  the  evidence  and  places  the      charge-sheet before  the Court,  further      action should  not be short-circuited by      resorting to  exercise inherent power to      quash  the   charge-sheet.  The   social      stability  and   order  requires  to  be      regulated  by   proceeding  against  the      offender as it is an offence against the      society  as   a  whole.   This  cardinal      principle should  always be kept in mind      before   embarking    upon    exercising      inherent power.’      Bearing in  mind the aforesaid parameters if the charge sheet and  the F.I.R. filed in the case in hand are examined and the  impugned order  of the  High court  is tested,  the conclusion becomes irresistible that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction  by trying  to appreciate  the evidence and coming to  a conclusion  that no  offence is  made  out.  On examining the  material on  record and the impugned judgment of the  High Court we are of the considered opinion that the High Court  was wholly  unjustified in invoking its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to

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

quash the  cognizance taken  in as much as the allegation in the F.I.R.  and material  referred to in the charge sheet do make out  an offence  under Section  414 of the Indian Penal Code,  so  far  as  the  respondent  is  concerned.  In  the aforesaid premise the impugned order of the High Court dated 5.3.1992 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 475 of 1992 is quashed and  this  appeal  is  allowed.  The  Magistrate  is directed to  proceed with  the trial against the respondent. The  respondent   may  now   appear  before  the  Magistrate forthwith.