High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/30246/2012allowed

Sudarshan Nayyar And Others v. State Of Punjab And Another

2016-01-21Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan17 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 21.01.2016 Sudershan Nayyar and others /..Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another //Respondents

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh

! "

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Kuldip Singh, J. (Oral) #$ ! % &' & "(&" )"(

*)$+ , ! " - ,

. /

. !

// !

// 0 0

// .

3! "

// . 2 / "((% . . .

. !

// 4 ! 5

/ ./

6 ! *(76 ! 8(&6 ! ""8""9 :)(4%8 . )(.

, - // . .

&& ) "((%

"97(((((40 /

/ 7 7 "(&( 5 ./ "7

. 97

;

< / /= /

- .

4 .

/ = .

- .

. /

!. / .

. :

. $ . ./

/ "7

/ .

. .

?&%@ .

A . / .

= /

! 5 / / = / / ::

&48 . /

+ ;

// <

+ , - !

6 +

6 + $

+ - / "((9

+..

4 / .

"* % "(&& .

= / /

= / #$ &' & "(&"

-= #$ ! & !

// / $ /

+ , - !

4 6 +

46 + / &'87 4A

/4A

: "(((9*40 ?8B@ "9 &( &'%9 4A

+&9 & &''&

. A

&7 " &''"4A

/4 ! 5

/ $ &7 * &''8 6 C

.4 ! 5 . 4 ! 5 /

&7 " &''" $ / .

:&4* "4* / D /

#$ .-

"7 % "(('

. / /

! "

! &

7 7 "(&( : :

! & :

. .

! &

. && ) "((%

+ , - !

. 4 ! 5

"* " "((% $

"8 " "(&(

& % "(&( $

. /

,0.0+

3.0 + $$8 7 "((& D&% &( "(&( ,

+..

= . / $ 2

/ . 7 8 "(&" $

. . .

: 7 7 "(&(

! " / - . ! "

/ ..

/ +

/ / "((9 /

.! " $ / .

! " #$ / = / $

+/ .

&& ) "((%

! & !

// 4

! 5

. "-

)(4%8

. 6 ! *(76 ! 8(& 6 ! ""8;"0"<""9;"0)< " )-

/ :.

.*.. 8. /

// /

. $ . .

"97(((((40 . -

4 ,

:"4*

&4* "7

./ "(

: 7 7 "(&( $

: ./ $

. .

/ .

: . # *& * "(&( .

/ /

=E()8)98*. / "7

/ -

$ /

. 97

$ :

7 7 "(&( .

"* % "(&& D/

*. :

&7 " &''& 4 A

. /

+ /4 ! 5

/ ;:&'< 6 C

. . 4 ! 5 &7 * &''8

. !

/ A

A + .

! & .

$#$

: . && ) "((% / . / . 7(

*& * "(&( . / . .

/ .

- /. "7

/. 7(

. / ! &0

. .

. . . / / / +

+..

. .

/ . 4A

. A

/ .4A

A + 4 ! 5

/ / +

+ ! + :

/F+/

;:&*< /

/ / .

&& ) "((% $

/ / !

/ . 4 !

5 . !

// :

/ ! & -

. -

& 8 "(&"

. /

! & # . . !

"' ' "(&& / :'

&& ) "((%

7 7 "(&( ! " / ! & :

;:8< $ /

+ ! &

. && ) "((% -

. && ) "((% $

! & /

! " ! & /

. ! * 0 0

! & $ ..

/ ! " * / ! & . . .

! &

.: = ! &

! " * - F$ .

+ / . . .

. ! & .

. 7(

*& * "(&( $

7 7 "(&(

: #

/ )"( $+ .

./ $

/ ! &

/ #

. .

/* / $ .

! & -

! " -

. / !

/ .

+ .

/AG

+ Chandran Ratnaswami v. K.C. Palanisamy and others, 2013 AIR (SC) (Crl.) 1317 :+

State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, (1977) 2 SCC 699 observed as under:4

34. This Court in State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, (1977) 2 SCC 699 observed that the wholesome power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when 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 High Courts have been

invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The Court observed in this case that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the legislature. It was held in this case (at p.703 of SCC):

"7. :..

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.

be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction."

/ State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp.

(1) SCC 335

35. In State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, this Court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of Cr.P.C. under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus, this Court made it clear that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list to myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(SCC pp. 378479, para 102) "102. (1) :::

(2) :..

(3) ::

(4) :..

(5) :..

(6):..

(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."

36. This Court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Others vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Another, (2005) 1 SCC 122 observed thus:

(SCC p. 128, para 8) "8. : 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. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a 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 allegations are accepted in toto."

37. In Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others, (2006) 6 SCC 736 this Court again cautioned about a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. The Court noticed the prevalent

impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. The Court further observed that: (SCC p. 749,para 13) "13. : Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged."

38. In the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Another vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others, (2007) 12 SCC 1, this Court after considering series of decisions observed: "46. The court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. On analysis of the aforementioned cases, we are of the opinion that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when it is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the statute itself and in the aforementioned cases. In view of the settled legal position, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

xxx xxx xxx

50. Civilised countries have recognised that liberty is the most precious of all the human rights. The American Declaration of Independence, 1776, French Declaration

of the Rights of Men and the Citizen, 1789, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, 1966 all speak with one voice4liberty is the natural and inalienable right of every human being. Similarly, Article 21 of our Constitution proclaims that no one shall be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with procedure prescribed by law.

51. The issuance of non4bailable warrants involves interference with personal liberty. Arrest and imprisonment means deprivation of the most precious right of an individual. Therefore, the courts have to be extremely careful before issuing non4bailable warrants.

52. Just as liberty is precious for an individual so is the interest of the society in maintaining law and order.Both are extremely important for the survival of a civilised society. Sometimes in the larger interest of the public and the State it becomes absolutely imperative to curtail freedom of an individual for a certain period, only then the non4bailable warrants should be issued."

. / #$ +

= -

! " * /

. / : ! & ! = #$

= F $ + .

$ . #$ =

#$ ! % &' & "(&"

)"( *)$+

, ! " - ,

= /

21.01.2016 (Kuldip Singh) gk Judge