Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
18. In Dr Raghubir Sharan v. State of Bihar (1964) 2 SCR 336, this court observed as under o " … Every High Court as the highest court exercising criminal jurisdiction in a State has inherent power to make any order for the purpose of securing the ends of justice …. Being an extraordinary power it will, however, not be pressed in aid except for remedying a flagrant abuse by a subordinate court of its povJers … ."
19. In the said case, the court also observed that the inherent powers can be exercised under this section by the High Court (1) to give effect to any order passed under the Code; (2) to prevent abuse of the process of the court; (3) otherwise F to secure the ends of justice.
20. In Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecutions 1964 AC ·1254, Lord Ried at page 1296 expressed his view "there must always be a residual discretion to prevent anything which G savciurs of abuse ofprocess" with which view all the members of the House of Lords agreed but differed as to whether this entitled a Court to stay a lawful prosecution.
21. In State of Haryana & Others v. BhajanLal & Others H reported in (1992) Suppl.1 sec p.335, this court had an occasion to examine the scope of the inherent power of the High Court in interfering with the investigation of an offence by the police and laid down the following rule: [SCC pp. 364-65, para 60: SCC (Cri) p. 456, para 60]. l'i'.1 "The sum and substance of the above deliberation results in a conclusion that the investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers in that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code and the courts are not justified in obliterating the track of investigation when the investigating agencies are well within their legal bounds as aforementioned. Indeed, a noticeable feature of the scheme under Chapter XIV of the Code is that a Magistrate is kept in the picture at all stages of the police investigation but he is not authorised to interfere with the actual investigation or to direct the police how that investigation is to l;>e conducted. But if a police officer ~ransgresses the circumscribed limits and improperly and , illegally exercises his investigatory powers in breach of any statutory provision causing serious prejudice to the personal liberty and also property of a citizen, then the court on being approached by the person aggrieved for the redress of any grievance, ~as to consider the nature and extent of the breach and pass appropriate orders as may be called for without leaving the citizens to the mercy of police echelons since human dignity is a dear value of our Constitution."
22. In Bhajan Lal (supra), this court in the backdrop of G interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 [2011) 3 S.C.R. A 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 B 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: c (1) 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.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR 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. (3) 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. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, on investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR 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 grounds for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted .in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceedings 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. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with ma/a 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."
23. This court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Others v. Mohd. Sharafuf Haque & Another (2005) 1 SCC 122 observed thus:- "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 quas11ing-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."
24. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Jnder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2007) 12 SCC 1 (wherein one of us, namely, Dalveer Bhandari, J. was the author of the judgment) has examined scope and ambit of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court in the said case observed that inherent powers under Section 482 should be exercised for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the A process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be fully justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers of the court.
25. In Devendra and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 8 Another (2009) 7 sec 495, this court observed as under:- "The re is no dispute with regard to the aforementioned propositions of law. However, it is now well settled that the High Court ordinarily would exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the allegations made in the first information report, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, do not make out any offence. When the allegations made in the first information report or the evidence collected during investigation do not satisfy the o ingredients of an offence, the superior courts would not encourage harassment of a person in a criminal court for nothing."
26. In State of A.P. v. Gourishetty Mahesh and Others (2010) 11 sec 226, this court observed that the power under E section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is wide but has to be exercised with great care and caution. The interference must be on sound principle and the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle the legitimate prosecution. The court further observed that if the allegations set out in the complaint F do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is up to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of its inherent power under section 482 of the Code.
27. In a recent decision in M. Mohan v. The State 2011 (3) SCALE 78 this Court again had an occasion to consider the case of similar nature and this court held that if all the facts mentioned in the complaint are accepted as correct in its entirety and even then the complaint does not disclose the H essemtial ingredients of, an offence, in such a case the High Court should ensure that such frivolous prosecutions are A quashed under its inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
28. When we apply the ratio of the settled principles of law to the facts of this case, then, in our considered opinion; the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quashed the complaint qua the appellant only to prevent abuse of the process of law.
29. Consequently, we set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court and quash the complaint qua the appellant in Crime No.50 of 2006, Police Station Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.
30. This appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of. o N.J. Appeal allowed.