Harmesh Singh Thoda v. State Of Punjab And Others
!"# $%&%!'( )!* +, -.
( /01211
!
"!
#$ % &&& 1.
0(
"
'(
)*#$+$ %+,+$+$+
-$+*
,./+0
#1
$ )"
'
00
0 0
0 % 1 0 0 )* 2
0
0 ' 0
00
2
0
2
0 2 , ++ +++34 25+ +++34
0
4
0 $$ 5+ +++34
2 0
4
%+ ++ +++34 2 0 0
6
0
'
7 00
,+0
#,4
,8+-$+,9 0 02$ ++ +++34
00 7 20 0
2/ %5 +++34 , ,+ +++34 0'
#$
0 00 00 0
'"
6 0
-$+* 2
- * '0 0 4 00' 0
00 -$+* 2 "
00 0 00
0
0
0 7 0'
' 7 '
' ( 0'
' :
00 0 0
3 022 00 22 '
0
0
'2 ' $$ 5+ +++34 %+ ++ +++34 0' ' 0
00 '
2 '0 2 0'
0
)* 0 0 ' 0
'020 ;
)*
( 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0
!
"#
#
"
$%&
' ()*
+
, &
$
-$,-$
# &&
.
!
/ +
) 5 0 0 '0 0 #$ %4 0
0' 2
0
'
'
2'
00 2 '00
%+< 0
2
0 0 * ( '
2 ' '
"
0 02 20 0
2
0 0 '2'0'
0
200 0 ''
002 /
2 00 00"
=2 -.$ 0
0
0 =0 200
2000 02
7
2 -.$
7 0':00 2 0
2 ' " ' ' '
' 2 7 =0 2 0
'
2' 00 7
2 -.$ '
0
0 "
1 !
* 2'(( +'$$ 2
0 0
0 2 2 0 0
(i). 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 make out a case against the accused. (ii). Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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. (iii). 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.
(iv). Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. 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.
(v). Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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.
(vi). 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. (vii). Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
4 instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
7.
Reference can further be made to Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal complaint or an FIR, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accordance with the guidelines engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. Reference can also be made to Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu vs. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors. : (2011) 12 SCC 437, wherein it was observed that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. Reliance can further be placed upon State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Gourishetty Mahesh and others : 2010 Criminal Law Journal 3844, wherein the Apex Court has propounded that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, accusation would not be sustained as that is the function of the trial Court.
8.
It is also well settled proposition of law that the exercise of
5 powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings is an exception and not a rule. In Monika Kumar vs. State of U.P. : (2006) 8 SCC 781, the Apex Court has propounded that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in the section itself and appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of this power. The inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction upon the High Court to act according to whims and caprice.
8 0 ' #3 4 5 * #
2 ' 6 * $'
2
=0 7 0':
7
0
0
0 2 '
:0 >
0
0
0 >2 (
07
0'2
? ? 2 07
)*3 0
(
2 0 "
( '0 '
2 00
)*3 0
* 20
2
:0 '"
0
0
,+ 01"
72$ * $ ( 2
?0 7 2 07
6 2 -.$ ' 0 0' ( @2 '
0 00
2 ( A* 8 %
7 +
'6 9 '#: &#
# $&
2 0 (
7 2 -.$ 2 7 0* -.$ 2 7
0'
00' 2 0'2 7 ' 00'0 2
0* 02000 02
(
00 3
7
00
3
0 7
2
-.$ * 7
2 0 )* 0 '
:0
0 "
' 7 20 " 00 ( ( 7
"
2 )* 0 '
(
' ,,
'0 0
0
02 0'
0 "
0 -$+*
00
#$ %4 0
'
:'
0
'"
'20
%+< 0
2
00
0 0 ' # $ %
0 00 ) 0
2 0
"
6
)* 0 00 0
2 '
0
*
00 0 00 2 " 0 0 '
00 0 0
00 2
#$ % '
:'
'00
4 2
'
20 0
0
2
'0
0 2( 0 0 ' ' #$ % 2 ' * '"
()*
0
00
00 0 00
)* "(
B (
0
' 7
-.$ ()*
( C
2
2
(
)*
( 200 0
0' ,$ * 2 0
00 7
,%
0
'
718
)!* +, -.