Mahabir Parsad v. State Of Haryana And Another
! " # $
%
!"!#$ " & "'
( !)* +,
# -
.!/ ++0* # $ ( * +,
% (
%
& '
1 %
)
" 34 -'
5! '
67 (4 18411
" 99148 7 " 18891893938938493191:
7 )
' ) " $ # +;!
1
)'
)) 5!) ' '
/ )!'
))9)
%
" 1= :(""
earlier Section 173 of Cr.P.C.
11 +;!
1 :
)$* * ))'* 18411* !-
'
' #813 %%
-'
- % > <-* # !- -
" $* ') % +! $* # !
) 2 !-
-
"
"'
(*
% (/%)* ) % * #
<'
/
%) % #<, / % <$
& .!/
* <
!-* <
, :) &%
' !/ & .!/
/%) !)
% ( $ !- /
/ <$ )
' 67 !%
% ( ? !)
inter alia !
'
,' 67 !% !* & .!/
* / /%) '
!!
))'
!% @; '
!! )! 7,''
+'$*
)% "!% )* #
'
/ ! + ')$*
" 18891893938938493191:
7 < % 67 !% < ) " * 7 < ) / ; & .!/
,'
"!% )* " / :
< / /%)$ & .!/
'
A !- " 99148 7 '
/ < ) )'
,/ ' 6!
/ * & .!/
* ,
411* ) %
)
) +) " >!'* #
,
) )$ /%)$ & .!/
# !
/
& ))
2+* #
%
)) (14 ))
- (43* !- < )
! #<, & .!/
/,
%
)) 67 %% !
3=31 -'
/ B
'
!
/% )' ' "!% )* " / :
)
%
" 1 ) '
!
" 18891893938938493191:
7 * ! )! ;
& .!/
@, ))' '
% $ '%) !
" 188918 7 / ! '
6!
/*
% ( !)
/ )
% /) ' /%)"
"'
(
" 14 7
)''
) /%) #<, /
/%))$ ) ) )< !
*
/ ! )
% +;!
1 + ! )
)$
< %% ' ! )! ;
!& .!/
< - ,'
/ * 67 !%
,
5! 5!
)
' %) &!'/
#C "!% / !
Salib @ Shalu @ Salim vs. Satte of U.P. and others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 947 State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 AIR SC 604.
( 8 ? !)
% '
% ( !
/
)
!
' !%% , / /
) !)
"
!
& % )
))< 67 supra) 5!
? " !)*
* !
/ /%)$
!)$ ) !
'
,' !- 5! )) '
!
'
)
! !))$* , ) /%$ 6!
))* , ) /%! ! <'
'
))
!/ - %
,
!%%
,
, ) ) / !
+ ! % $
)*
) )$ /!
) %< )) /%$ , )
'
)
4 7
!)* ) !)
!
/
% !) 67 (supra) <!) ) )$ < ) !- 5! ! )*
% <
, % :) >%* <
'
-
<'
/
+ ! )- / <'
!- <)) % !
/ $
))
!/ !)$ ;%) = #,'
) !)
%
% !'
* %
/ !
!'
)) (14 ))
- (43*
'
!-
'
( #813
)
%, ,)$ )) !
'
', & .!/
/%)
'
A !-* %))$ $ )/
,
/%$ !
!)$ !'
)) )
))'
%% % !/
) +* 1=44 1 ) ) !
,
1381 +;!
' ))$ ,'
'
!
') &, ; & .!/
+ ')$* !
% !// < )* ,'
"!% )* " / :
6 * < !
/
% 14=1 +;!
4
!'
,),
,'
) , 5! /%) & .!/
* '
67 !%
' '
/
!
! %$ / )$
9 + % !) ,* )) 1111 +;!
))$
<!) $ )
)) /% %% < %!
& .!/
/) +
/* )) 1111*
" +;!
8 ))$
* %%
/)'
< ' @;%
) ,'
/
! & .!/
* '
,)
!%% ))'
),
)
+ % !)
% 14=1 +;!
4
<!) ) & .!/
/ '
!- / !$ 2+ 7 * / % % < < -
! < ,), %
'
,$ !
'
5! 5! /
"!% )* " / :
$ ))' / )$
'
/
2+
$
/
'
11 6!
))*
'
" 188* 18 7 * <
))< Section 166. Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person.
Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Section 167. Public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury.
Whoever, being a public servant, and being, as such public servant, charged with the preparation or translation of any document or electronic record, frames, prepares or translates that document or electronic record in a manner which he knows or believes to be incorrect, intending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause injury to any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(
, $ % ))'
),
$ /%
/ $ '
" 18 7 7
! ))
)'
< !- /%$* ))
))'
%% %
!/ , /%) )
% (D / )* '
" 14 7
'
/ 6!
))* % /) !)
'
% (
))' /!
) %< !
% /) !
' !&!
, '
& .!/
/) ' /) ! !! )! ;
/ ,''
'$ ) ! )$ + < >!'
#C "!% / !
Gulam Mustafa vs. State of Karnataka and another, 2023(3) RCR (Criminal) 182* %-'
!'
>! + ! +/!)) / ))<'
, "27. This Court, in S.W. Palanitkar vs. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 24, held:
"... whereas while exercising power under section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 the High Court has to look at the object and purpose for which such power is conferred on it under the said provision. Exercise of inherent power is available to the High Court to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C., or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This being the position, exercise of power under section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 should be consistent with the scope and ambit of the same in the light of the decisions aforementioned. In appropriate cases, to prevent judicial process from being an instrument of oppression or harassment in the hands of frustrated or vindictive litigants, exercise of inherent power is not only desirable but necessary also, so that the judicial forum of court may not be allowed to be utilized for any oblique motive. When a person approaches the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 to quash
* the very issue of process, the High Court on the facts and circumstances of a case has to exercise the powers with circumspection as stated above to really serve the purpose and object for which they are conferred."(emphasis supplied)
28. In State of Karnataka vs. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89, it was decided:
"6. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise.
Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision.
+ exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. 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." (emphasis supplied) xxx xxx xxx
30. The law on the subject was also examined in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641. In Habib Abdullah Jeelani, (2017) 2 SCC 779, it was opined:
"inherent power in a matter of quashment of FIR has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and when and only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in the provision itself There is no denial of the fact that the power under section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 is very wide but it needs no special emphasis to state that conferment of wide power requires the Court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court." 1 6!
<>!' :
#C "!% / !
Mahmood Ali vs. State of U.P. 2023 CriLJ 3896 %-'
!'
>! >: <)*
) ))<
"12. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings.
The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines.
The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under section 482 of the CrPC, 1973 or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.
+ <>!' :
#C "!% / !
"tate of Andhra Pradesh vs. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522* ) )$ !
/ ) /)$ ) ! 67
5! '
67 "%-'
!'
>! + & $* ))<'
%
"5. ...Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto."
6))$* <>!' :
#C "!% / !
Kishan Singh dead through LR's vs. Gurpal Singh, 2010 (3) SCC (Criminal) 1091* %-'
!'
>! :" !
*
) "22. In cases where there is a delay in lodging a FIR, the Court has to look for a plausible explanation for such delay. In absence of such an explanation, the delay may be fatal. The reason for quashing such proceedings may not be merely that the allegations were an after thought or had given a coloured version of events. In such cases the court should carefully examine the facts before it for the reason that a frustrated litigant who failed to succeed before the Civil Court may initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the other side with mala fide intentions or the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the other party. Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustrations by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court.
The court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. In such a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(vide :Chandrapal Singh & Ors. v. Maharaj Singh & Anr., 1982(2) RCR (Rent) 425;State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1991(1) RCR (Criminal) 383;G. Sagar Suri & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 707; and Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. & Ors., 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 171 : 2008(5) R.A.J. 254 : (2008) 12 SCC 531."
1 7 ,< ! ,* % ))< 67 (4 18411
" 99148 7 " 18891893938938493191:
7 )
' ) " $ # +;!
1
)'
)) 5!) ' '
/
5! 5! 13 '
/))! %%) $* )) ) %
&
'
%-'9 F9(
% F9(