Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
13. A three-Judge Bench in State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89, had the occasion to consider the ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. By analysing the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court laid down that 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 further held that 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. The following was laid down in para 6: (SCC p. 94) “6. … 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. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such 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 AHMAD ALI QURAISHI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 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.”
14. Further in para 8 the following was stated: (Devendrappa case, SCC p. 95) “8. … Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.”
15. In Sunder Babu v. State of T.N., (2009) 14 SCC 244, this Court was considering the challenge to the order of the Madras High Court where application was under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It was contended before this Court that the complaint filed was nothing but an abuse of the process of law and allegations were unfounded. The prosecuting agency contested the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. taking the stand that a bare perusal of the complaint discloses commission of alleged offences and, therefore, it is not a case which needed to be allowed. The High Court accepted the case of the prosecution and dismissed the application. This Court referred to the judgment in Bhajan Lal’s case and held that the case fell within Category 7. The Apex Court relying on Category 7 has held that the application under Section 482 deserved to be allowed and it quashed the proceedings.
16. After considering the earlier several judgments of this Court including the case of State of Haryana versus Bhajan lal (supra), in Vineet Kumar (supra), this Court laid down following in paragraph 41: – “41. Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories as illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or harassment. When there are materials to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which is to the following effect: (SCC p. 379, para 102) “102. (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.” Above Category 7 is clearly attracted in the facts of the present case. Although, the High Court has noted the judgment of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, but did not advert to the relevant facts of the present case, materials on which final report was submitted by the IO. We, thus, are fully satisfied that the present AHMAD ALI QURAISHI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] is a fit case where the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the criminal proceedings.”
17. Now, when we examine the facts of the present case in light of the ratio as laid down by this Court in above noted cases, it is clear that the present is a case where parties are related and are neighbours. Civil dispute regarding property is going on between father of the accused and the complainant. The incident which is basis for summoning of appellant is dated 19.07.2016 which is alleged to have taken place in front of the house of the complainant. The materials on record do indicate that quarrel took place between the parties on 19.07.2016 and police visited the spot and initiated proceedings under Section 151, 107 and 116 Cr.P.C.. The state has brought on the record the copy of the enquiry report dated 11.12.2016 of the CO, City, in which enquiry report, following was stated: – “…It was found form entire enquiry that there was dispute between applicant Shri Sajjad Quraishi and opposite party Anwarul Haq over constructing drain regarding which dispute started between both the parties on 19.07.2016. On receiving information of dispute at Police Station Kotwali, the then SHO SI Shri hari Prakash Yadav conducted proceeding under Sections 151, 107,116 CrPC on 20.07.2016 on both the parties to maintain peace tranquillity. During enquiry, perused the complaint dated 03.08.2016 filed by the applicant before the Hon’ble Commission and found that the applicant filed complaint dated 29.08.2016 of the same charges u/ s 156(3) CrPC before the Hon’ble Court of Special Judge(POCSO Act)/Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Jaunpur in which the Hon’ble Court of Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Jaunpur, as per its endorsement order dated 14.10.2016 has stated that in the entire facts and circumstances of the said case, sufficient grounds to register the case are not available. Statements of other witnesses recorded during enquiry and nearby people were interrogated whereupon eye witnesses stated the fact of the dispute between applicant Sajjad Qureshi and opposite party Anwar Ali over the drain and denying the allegations levelled by the applicant in his application, fact of opposite party Ahmed Ali and Liyakat Ali sons of Anwar doing dirty/indecent act/deed or manhandling whatsoever with the daughters of applicant has not come to light. During enquiry, applicant failed to submit oral/documentary evidence whatsoever. Other allegations levelled by the applicant have not been proved from the enquiry. Peace and tranquillity are prevailing at the spot, yet SHO of Kotwali is directed to ensure peace and tranquillity by keeping vigil on the parties. Report is submitted for kind perusal.”
18. We have taken note of the above report only to take the sequence of the event and not as a substantive piece of evidence. On the same allegations, the complainant has filed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was rejected by Sessions Judge by an order dated 14.10.2016, holding that no sufficient grounds have been made to register a complaint against the appellant.
19. In the Criminal Revision filed against the said order of the Session Judge, this Court did not interfere with the rejection of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., however, observed that the complainant has remedy to file appropriate application. The complainant thereafter had filed Complaint No.1 of 2017. It is true that rejection of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in no manner preclude a complainant to file a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
20. From the sequence of the events as noticed above, it is clear that dispute regarding property between complainant and father of the appellant is pending much before the alleged incident dated 19.07.2016. The fact that on the same date of the incident Police visited the spot and has drawn proceeding under Section 151, 107, 116 Cr.P.C. against both the parties and both the parties were required to maintain peace is a clear pointer to the nature of quarrel between the parties. It was more than six weeks thereafter that for the first time an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant against the accused in the court of Session Judge.
21. One more fact which transpire from order of Session Judge summoning the accused need to be noted. As noted above, the complaint against the appellant and other accused refers to two incidents of 19.07.2016. One incident which took place near the Public hand pump outside the house of complainant and second, on the same day in the house of the complainant where he alleged that the appellants, their father and other accused entered into the house and started beating the AHMAD ALI QURAISHI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] complainant and his daughters. Sessions Judge in his summonig order did not believe the second incident as alleged in the complaint. Non believing on one part of the incident as alleged in the complaint by the Court clearly throws a shadow of doubt on the earlier part of the incident as alleged.
22. Learned session judge in the impugned judgment has not taken note of the Civil Suit pending between the parties.
23. In the facts of present case, we are fully satisfied that present is a case where criminal proceedings have been initiated by complainant with an ulterior motive due to private and personal grudge. The High Court although noticed the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana and others versus Bhajan Lal and others(supra) in the impugned judgment but did not examine the facts of the case as to whether present is a case which falls in any of the category as enumerated in Bhajan Lal’s case. The present case clearly falls in category VII of Bhajan Lal’s case and the High Court failed to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in quashing the criminal proceeding initiated by the complaint.
24. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that in permitting Criminal proceedings against the appellant shall be permitting a criminal proceeding which has been maliciously instituted with ulterior motives, permitting such criminal proceeding to go on is nothing but the abuse of the procees of the Court which needs to be interfered by this Court.
25. In result, the appeal is allowed. The criminal proceedings initiated by Complaint Case No.1 of 2017, Sajjad Quraishi versus Anwarul Haq Quraishi are quashed. Divya Pandey Appeal allowed.