Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1643 of 2007
PETITIONER:
Didigam Bikshapathi & Anr
RESPONDENT:
State of A.P.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/11/2007
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & TARUN CHATTERJEE
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1643 OF 2007
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2205 of 2006)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a
learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court,
dismissing the petition filed by the appellants under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ’the
Code’). Prayer was to quash the proceedings in SC No.498 of
2001 on the file of VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Hyderabad, initiated against them for commission of offence
punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(in short ’IPC’).
3. Accusations which led to the institution of the
proceedings are essentially are as follows:
Budida Krishnamurthy (hereinafter referred to as the
’deceased’) had close friendship with the appellant (A1). About
four years back he appointed deceased and others as field
officers in his finance firm namely; Uma Hire Purchase and
Finance. While so, the appellant no.1 joined as a partner in
Kanaka Mahalaxmi Real Estate Ventures run by Mekala Ravi
and Mekala Venu. The deceased and two other field officers
namely; Budida Laxmaiah (L.W.7) and Thandra Mallaiah
(L.W.8) sold about 15 plots in that group to Kommaipalli
villagers and collected various amounts from them and
handed over the same to the appellant no.1. As he did not pay
the money to the Kanaka Mahalaxmi Real Estate Ventures, the
other partners did not register the plots in favour of the
persons, who paid the money to the deceased. Since the
deceased demanded for registration of the plots in favour of
the prospective purchasers, he (appellant no.1) escaped with
his family from Jangaon and was staying at his in-laws house.
The deceased went there and demanded registration of the
plots, but the appellants abused him in filthy language and
the accused neither registered the plots nor returned the
amount. Due to the mental harassment and unable to bear
the pressure from the purchasers of the plots, the deceased
committed suicide by falling under an un-known train in the
night of 17.4.2001 leaving a suicide note narrating the reasons
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
for his committing suicide.
4. Before the High Court the stand was that the ingredients
necessary to constitute offence under Section 306 IPC are
absent. There is no element of abetment. The High Court did
not accept the contention taking note of the statement made in
the suicide note. The High Court felt that this was not a fit
case where the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code is to
be exercised.
5. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that there was no question of abetment. Merely
because the person committed suicide having been insulted
and humiliated due to the comments or utterances made by
the accused, that does not constitute an offence punishable
under Section 306 IPC. Therefore, the High Court ought to
have quashed the proceedings. Strong reliance was placed on
a decision of this Court in Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal
(2005 AIR SCW 1326). Further it was submitted that there
was only a vague reference to appellant no.2 wife of appellant
no.1, and on that score, the appeal deserves to be allowed so
far as she is concerned.
6. In response, learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that the suicide note clearly refers to various acts of
the appellants due to which the unfortunate step of
committing suicide was taken by the victim and in any event it
is not a fit case where jurisdiction under Section 482 is to be
exercised.
7. Section 482 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 aliauid alicui concedit, concedere
videtur et id sine guo 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 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, fn exercise of the powers court would be
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
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
report, the court may examine the question of fact. When a
report is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into
the materials to assess what the report has alleged and
whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are
accepted in toto.
8. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 this
Court summarized some categories of cases where inherent
power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings.
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal
bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want
of sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information
report or complaint taken at its face value and
accepted in their entirety do not constitute the
offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but
there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence
adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the
charge.
9. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear
in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal
evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly
inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where
there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not
support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code 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. That is the function of the
trial Judge. 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 (1992 Supp (1) 335). A note of caution
was, however, added that the power should be exercised
sparingly and that too in rarest of rare cases. The illustrative
categories indicated by this Court are as follows:
"(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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
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, no 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
ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code. or the Act
concerned (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 Act concerned, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party.
(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."
10. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court
under Section 482 of the Code. are very wide and the very
plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise.
Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of
this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power
should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The
High Court being the highest court of a State should normally
refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the
entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the
evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court
and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of
magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective
without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule
can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court
will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the
proceeding at any stage.( See State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar
Sahoo (2005) 13 SCC 540 and Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar
AIR 2006 SC 1937)
11. The suicide note clearly refers to the background in
which the victim took the extreme step of taking away his own
life by committing suicide. It is not a case where there is no
reference to any act by the accused. In Netai Dutta’s case
(supra) para 6 it was observed as follows:
"6. In the suicide note, except referring to
the name of the appellant at two places, there
is no reference of any act or incidence whereby
the appellant herein is alleged to have
committed any willful act or omission or
intentionally aided or instigated the deceased
Pranab Kumar Nag in committing the act of
suicide. There is no case that the appellant
has played any part or any role in any
conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or
resulted in the commission of suicide by
deceased Pranab Kumar Nag."
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
12. In the instant case the suicide note clearly refers to the
acts of the accused-appellant and the roles played by them.
Therefore, the High Court rightly rejected the prayer of
exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code. We make it
clear that any observation made by the High Court and by us
while dismissing of the present appeal shall be construed to be
determinative factor in the trial.