Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: Mohd. Akram Chowdhury, J., reiterated the settled position of law that if an alternate efficacious remedy is available under the statute, the inherent power of this Court cannot be invoked.

A complaint was filed against the petitioner under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2010 and the Trial Court ordered the petitioner to pay Rs 4000 per month to his wife and Rs 3000 each to his minor children.

Furthermore, vide that order, it was ordered to provide one room, kitchen and bathroom in the shared household or in alternative rental accommodation at a suitable place, also the petitioner was restrained from committing any act of violence upon the respondents.

Aggrieved with the Trial Court’s order, the petitioner preferred the present petition under Section 561-A J&K CrPC, which is akin to Section 482 Central CrPC for quashing of the impugned order issued by the Trial Court.

Analysis, Discussion and Decision

High Court stated that instead of going into the merits of the case, a preliminary point raised by the respondent’s counsel was required to be determined: Whether the present petition was maintainable when alternate remedy for challenging the impugned order was available?

The impugned order was passed under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2010.

As per Section 29 of the above-said Act, all the orders passed under any of the provisions of the Act are appealable.

This Court under Section 561-A J&K CrPC has inherent powers to exercise. It has been a consistent view of Constitutional Courts that when alternate efficacious remedy is available, the inherent jurisdiction of the Court cannot be invoked.

Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 and Laxmikant Revchand Bhjwani v. Pratapsingh Mohansingh Pardeshi, (1995) 6 SCC 576 reminded the High Court that the inherent power cannot be assumed in terms of Article 227 as an unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardships of wrong decision. Its exercise must be restricted to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law and justice.

This Court in Jatinder Nath Bakshi v. State of J&K, 2009 SCC OnLine J&K 90, had held that the power under Section 561-A J&K Cr.PC has to be exercise sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases. This inherent power cannot be exercised on mere drop of hat or merely to correct any illegality committed by the subordinate court.

In High Court’s opinion, petitioner instead of filing an appeal under Section 29 of the Jammu and Kashmir Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2010 before the Sessions Court rushed to this court invoking its inherent power, which otherwise had to be used cautiously and sparingly.

Since there was an alternate efficacious remedy available under the statute, invoking the inherent power of this Court was an abuse of process.

Therefore, this Court found no scope for interference into the impugned order by exercising its inherent jurisdiction. [Nissar Ahmad Malik v. Mubeena Farhat, 2022 SCC OnLine J&K 18, decided on 31-01-2022]


Advocates before the Court:

For the respondent: Syed Sajad Geelani, Advocate

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., expressed its anguish at how provisions such as Sections 354A/506 of Penal Code, 1860 are falsely invoked at the drop of a hat to register one’s displeasure at the conduct of another individual.

Instant petition was filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 354A/506 of the Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis, Law and Decision

High Court expressed that Supreme Court has time and again laid down the parameters that must be adhered to by a High Court while exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR. Along with the parameters, it has been consistently observed by the Supreme Court that the inherent power in a matter of quashment of FIR has to be exercised sparingly and with caution, and only when such exercise if justified by the test laid down in the provision itself.

Supreme Court in the decision of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, provided a precise, clearly defined set of inflexible guidelines laying down instances where such an inherent power could be exercised for quashing of an FIR.

Hence,

“…quashing of criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive.”

 In the present matter, the content of the FIR looked sketchy and were void of any specifics regarding the offences which were allegedly committed.

Adding to the above, Court found that on a reading of the Status report also nothing regarding the offences was revealed.

As per the Status report,

“…the Petitioner and his wife were habitual complainants and have filed multiple complaints against the construction that would take place in the neighbourhood, and therefore, it is evident that the instant FIR was maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the Petitioner, and with a view to spite him and his wife due to a private and personal grudge.”

 High Court expressed its anguish at how provisions such as Section 354A/506 IPC are falsely invoked at the drop of a hat to register one’s displeasure at the conduct of another individual. This merely trivialises the offence of sexual harassment.

Therefore, Bench found the present matter fit for exercising its inherent power to quash the FIR. [Dr Karunakar Patra v. State,    2022 SCC OnLine Del 245, decided on 24-1-2022]


Advocates before the Court:

For the petitioner: Kumar Piyush Pushkar, Advocate

For the respondent: Chirag Khurana, Advocate,

Ashsish Aggarwal, ASC for the State,

Madhusudhan Bhayana Advocate for the Complainant/Respondent 2

Chhattisgarh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Chhattisgarh High Court: Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J., dismissed the petition being devoid of merits.

The facts of the case are such that the petitioner and respondent 5 are husband and wife who are unhappy together and want no reconciliation. An FIR has been lodged against the petitioner alleging the commission of offences under Sections 498A, 377, 323, 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The instant petition was filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking quashing the said FIR.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that subsequent to lodging of FIR, the petitioner and respondent negotiated a compromise through a certain amount to be given to respondent 5 as there is no possibility of reconciliation and a petition for divorce will be filed and the cases will be withdrawn. It was further submitted that as the agreement still exists it is a fit case in which the FIR with respect to offences under Section 498A, 377, 323 and 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is liable to be quashed.

Counsel for the State submitted that a prima-facie case is made out, which reflects the commission of offences registered against them. The offences under Section 498A, 377, 323 and 34 of IPC and Section 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act are not compoundable. There may be an agreement between the parties for settlement of the disputes, but that cannot be made a ground for quashment of the FIR against the petitioner.

Section 24 of the Contracts Act provides as follows:-

“24. Agreements void, if considerations and objects unlawful in part. —If any part of a single consideration for one or more objects, or any one or any part of any one of several considerations for a single object, is unlawful, the agreement is void.”

The Court observed that in view of the provision under Section 24 of the Contracts Act one of the terms of the agreement was that the Respondent 5 wants to withdraw the criminal complaint against the petitioner after receiving payment for the same, which cannot be regarded as any lawful term as the agreement cannot be enforced under any law.

The Court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303. and observed that “In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.”

 The Court observed that the terms of agreement in the compromise may be a ground of defence for the petitioner, but that cannot be a ground for quashment of the whole criminal case against them. Without there being any reason to believe that the settlement is complete between the parties, this Court cannot hold that the continuation of proceedings will be an exercise in futility, as the respondent No.5 is intent in prosecute the petitioner and others on the basis of a complaint against them

The Court thus held that one of the charges against the petitioner is the charge under Section 377 of I.P.C. regarding commission of unnatural sexual intercourse with the respondent 5, which is a ground connected with the offence under Section 498 (A) of I.P.C. regarding imparting cruel treatment to the respondent 5 by the petitioner, therefore, after overall consideration of the facts and circumstances and the case law cited, I am of this view that this is not a fit case, in which the petitioner can be granted relief as prayed by him, therefore, this petition is dismissed and disposed off.

[Nimish Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2021 SCC OnLine Chh 3202, decided on 25-10-2021]


Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.


Appearances

For Petitioner: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe

For respondent 01 to 04: Mrs. Hamida Siddiqui.

For respondent 05: Mr. Jaydeep Singh Yadav

Uttarakhand High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: Lok Pal Singh, J., addressed an application that sought to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 468, 471 of Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66(D) of Information Technology Act pending in Judicial Magistrate Court.

In the present matter, a complaint was lodged against the applicant that he committed forgery for purpose of cheating by using as genuine the forged and fraudulent document with the intention to cause damage to the Trust and hacked the information stored in the computer.

A charge-sheet was submitted by against the applicant in respect of selfsame offences. Further, Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the applicant to face the trial in respect to the mentioned offences.

Siddhartha Singh, applicant for the counsel submitted that the applicant was an old trustee and was appointed as the President of Kailashanand Mission Trust. He submitted that proceedings against the applicant are nothing but the outcome of the revengeful activity of the complainant and his associates. Complainant concealed the fact of the applicant being the President of the Trust and went on to lodging an FIR against him in the name of him being an “Unknown Hacker”.

According to the applicant’s counsel, the entire proceedings are nothing but an abuse of process of law and Court.

Senior Advocate, Rakesh Thapliyal on behalf of the complainant due to nefarious activities of the applicant, Swami Kailashanand was annoyed with him and by way of a resolution of trust, he cancelled all rights of the applicant and even removed him from the post of Manager of Trust.

He further submitted that various complaints were filed against the applicant for forging Trust’s letter pad, seals and receipt book and resolutions.

Applicant’s Counsel while relying on the Supreme Court case in, International Advanced Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy and New Materials (ARCI) v Nimra Cerglass Technics (P) Ltd., (2016) 1 SCC 348, argued that in order to bring a case for offence of cheating, it is not merely sufficient to prove that a false representation was made, but it is further necessary to prove that the representation was false to the knowledge of accused and was made in order to deceive complainant.

According to the ruling in Supreme Court case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, in which certain principles in respect of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC are laid down, one of the principles which hold significance in the present matter is following:

“…Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not.”

Thus, in the present matter, High Court stated that in view of the above, a bare perusal of FIR as well as the charge sheet, it is apparent that foundation of criminal offence is laid against the applicant. Jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC should not be exercised to stifle or scuttle the legitimate prosecution. Court stated that in the present case, this is not the stage to quash the charge sheet.

Hence, Since, prima facie case is made out against the applicant, the Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance and summoned the applicant to face the trial in respect of the offences complained of against him. [Vijay Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Misc. Application No. (C-482) No. 1087 of 2016, decided on 18-12-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Rekha Dikshit, J. while disposing of this petition granted petitioners time to surrender and apply for bail so that the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law and in terms of law laid down in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., (2009) 4 SCC 437.

This petition was filed with a prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet of 28-12-2018, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 427,452, 354-B and 120-B Penal Code, 1860 including the entire proceeding.

Prashant Shukla and Aditya Kumar Maurya, Counsels for the petitioners submitted that FIR was lodged on false and fabricated facts and that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It was further submitted that petitioners are ready to surrender before the court below with some protection granted to them.

The Additional Government Advocate opposed this petition.

In regard to the particulars of the petition and submission of the parties, the Court observed that the power under Section 482 CrPC is not to be exercised in routine manners so as to cut short the entire process of trial before the Courts below, but it is for limited purposes. It could be either exercised to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. The power cannot be placed in straight jacket formula.

If an FIR or complaint discloses any offence at all or it is frivolous, collusive or oppressive from the face of it, the Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC but it should be exercised sparingly. Some cases were referred to in support of the above: State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Popular Muthiah v. State, (2006) 7 SCC 296, Hamida v. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474, and a few others.

However, the Court observed that Police has found a prima facie case against accused and submitted the charge-sheet in the Court below and after an investigation found a prima facie case of commission of a cognizable offence by the accused which should be tried in a Court of Law. At this particular stage, there is no occasion to look into the question, whether the charge ultimately can be substantiated or not since that would be a subject matter of trial. No substantial ground was made out which may justify interference by this Court under Section 482 CrPC.[Mahboob Khan v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 3196, decided on 30-08-2019]

Uttarakhand High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: N.S. Dhanik, J. entertained a Criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 482 CrPC, where the petitioner had prayed for quashing for the entire proceeding of Session Trial under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC as well as Section 3(1)(X) of ST/SC Act. 

The instant application was filed on the basis of the compromise between the parties, hence, the applicant requested for quashing of the proceedings, summoning and further pending proceedings. 

The complainant through his counsel Deep Prakash Bhatt, submitted that the differences were buried and the dispute was to be amicably settled between the two parties. It was further contended that he was no more interested in prosecution. The counsel relied on the judgment in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, where the Supreme Court held that “The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint 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.”  

Learned counsel for the applicant, Pankaj Sharma, submitted that even if the contents of the FIR be conceded to be true, no ingredients of Section 3 (1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were prima facie made out against the applicant, in the sense that informant nowhere said that the accused himself was not a member of SC/ST and he used those words intentionally in order to humiliate him (victim) in a place within the public view knowing it that he (victim) belonged to a community of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.

Hence the Court observed that both the parties had prayed that since no offence under Section 3(1) (X) of the Act was made out even in the FIR, they were to be permitted to compound the offence. Hence, the Court granted compounding of offence under Sections 504 and 506 of Penal Code, 1860 It was advised to permit the complainant/victim to compound the offences alleged against the applicant in the larger interest of the society.

While dealing with the inherent jurisdiction, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement was arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter was still under investigation, the High Court may accept the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings. It was because of the reason that at this stage the investigation was still on and even the charge-sheet had not been filed. Likewise, those cases, where the charge was framed but the evidence was yet to start, the High Court exercised its powers, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned therein. The Court was of the opinion that matter deserved to be given a quietus as the continuance of proceedings arising out of the first information report in question would be an exercise in futility.[Karnail Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 691, decided on 29-07-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: This Criminal Case was filed before a Single Judge Bench of Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J., by petitioner under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the charge sheet pending before the JMFC and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge under Section 3 and 22 of the Madhya Pradesh Vanopaj Abhivahan Niyam 2000, Section 26 (1)(6) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 and under Section 52/1 of the Kasht Chiran Adhiniyam, 1984.

Facts of the matter were that 14 doorposts made up of teak wood was found and seized by the Forest officials from the under-construction house of petitioner. For the above illegal activity, complaint was filed against petitioner. Petitioner had submitted that the teak wood doorpost was not illegal and showed the relevant document. The competency of the Range Officer was in question who had submitted the complaint against the petitioners. Revision court found that range officer was competent to file a complaint against petitioner under Section 76(d) of the Indian Forest Act.

High Court agreed with revision court that range officer was competent to file a complaint against petitioner. In addition to that in light of case of Krishnan v. Krishnaveni, (1997) 4 SCC 214 Court also observed that this petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code is in the nature of second revision, therefore, not a proper case in which inherent power could be invoked under Section 482 CrPC. Therefore, this petition was dismissed. [Ramgopal v. State of M.P.,2018 SCC OnLine MP 924, order dated 14-12-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: An application was filed before a Single Judge Bench of Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J., under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside of FIR filed under Sections 323, 294, 384, 506, 354, 342 and 355 read with Section 34 IPC.

The present matter occurred as a consequence of a fortress checking programme organized by Railway Board initiated in order to stop the passengers traveling without ticket. During the drive, few people were found ticketless which they justified by stating that they always travel without ticket and they were going to attend a rally organized by Bhartiya Kisan Union in Uchehehra. They were charged with fine in addition to the ticket amount. Later, FIR was filed against the railway checking staff and police alleging them of offences under the above-mentioned provisions.

Petitioner submitted that complaint filed was with malafide intention and false allegation were made suggested by the fact that necessary ingredients for the offences were not found. High Court after perusing the submission made by the parties observed that the petitioner were performing their duty under the fortress checking the drive and had no enmity with the passengers caught without the ticket. In view of the fact that a number of ticket checkers and RPF force were deployed it was found that the petitioner i.e. Chief Ticket Inspector had no necessity to have involved personally. In addition to the above due process was followed by the petitioner by charging the ticketless passengers with fine.

High Court referred to the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 where guidelines to be exercised during process of Section 482 CrPC was provided and observed that the allegations made under FIR were prima facie absurd and improbable. Therefore, writ petition was allowed and the impugned FIR filed against the petitioner was quashed. [Prabhat Kumar Hazare v. State of M.P.,2018 SCC OnLine MP 814, Order dated 02-11-2018]

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu & Kashmir High Court: A Single Judge Bench of M.K. Hanjura, J., allowed an application filed against the order dismissing the petitioner’s petition under Section 561-A of the CrPC, 1989 [Jammu & Kashmir]. The petitioner sought quashing of the dismissal order primarily on the ground that it was passed behind his back.

The main issue, in this case, was whether a criminal Court can recall or review its decision after the date of its delivery.

The Court applied the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, (2011) 14 SCC 770, wherein the Supreme Court had held that there is no power of review with the criminal court once the judgment has been rendered. However, 4 exceptions to this general rule were also laid down by the Supreme Court: first, if the judgment is pronounced without jurisdiction; second, if it is in violation of the principles of natural justice; third, if it has been pronounced without giving an opportunity of being heard to the party affected by it; and fourth, where the order is obtained by abuse of the process of the Court. In all these cases the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction can recall its judgment.

The Court held that the petitioner’s case was covered under the above exceptions i.e. the order was passed behind his back and he was not afforded an opportunity of being heard. Hence the impugned order was quashed and recalled by the Court. [Jalal-ud-Din Sofi v. State of J&K,2018 SCC OnLine J&K 519, order dated 24-08-2018]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Dipak Misra, CJ and AM Khanwilkar and Dr. DY Chandrachud, JJ, explaining the principles governing the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, said that while the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

The Court summarised the elaborate principles laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases. Below is the summary of the principles:

  • The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Also, the power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
  • In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.
  • As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
  • Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.
  • Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.

The Court, however, said that the decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. [Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1189, decided on 04.10.2017]

 

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: In a matter where the applicant sought to recall an order whereby the petition was disposed of directing the court below to conclude the trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,  the  Court refused to exercise it’s inherent power under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

The Court said that Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a court, the said court in the absence of a specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and is dis-entitled to entertain a fresh prayer for any relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law. It was further held that The power to recall a judgment will not be exercised when the ground for reopening the proceedings or vacation the judgement was available to be pleaded in the original action but was not done or where a proper remedy in some other proceeding such as by way of appeal or revision was available but was not availed.

It was further said that the effect that the criminal justice delivery system does not clothe the Court to add or delete any words, except to correct the clerical or arithmetical error as specifically been provided under the Statute itself after the pronouncement of the judgment. The inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is intended to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure ends of justice. Such power cannot be exercised to do something that has been expressly barred under the Code.

The bench of Suneet Kumar J., also laid down 4 conditions when a Tribunal or a Court can review its earlier order:

  1. if the proceedings culminating into an order suffer from the inherent lack or jurisdiction and such lack of jurisdiction is patent.
  2. there exists a fraud or collusion in obtaining the judgment.
  3. there has been a mistake prejudicing a party, or
  4. a judgment was rendered in ignorance of the fact that a necessary party has not been serving at all or had died and the estate was not represented.

[V.K. Anand . State of U.P, 2016 SCC OnLine All 392, decided on 30.05.2016]

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: In a significant decision regarding the issue of exercise of inherent power of the High Courts under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings in matters related to commercial disputes where the cases appear to have predominant civil nature but on perusal of facts reveals an innate criminal modus operandi the Bench of Dipak Misra and Vikramjit Sen, JJ. observed that it is an accepted principle that whenever there is a manipulative and cleverly conceived availing of benefits like letters of credits then such cases are not regarded as having a predominant civil character as such manipulations create a financial hazard for the society at large therefore the superior courts being the guardians of collective interest should not invoke its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the proceedings.

The facts as deduced from the chargesheet prepared by the Central Bureau of Investigation states that the respondents got letters of credit issued form Bank of Baroda showing fake details in name of fictitious companies which further discounted the letters of credits by attaching their bogus bills.

On perusing the arguments of Pinky Anand, Additional Solicitor General and A.L. Das representing the appellants and respondents, respectively, the Court went with the arguments of the appellant pointing out that the foundation of the case is in criminal law, therefore, the case does not have a civil character. The Court further observed that, in such cases, it falls upon the High Courts to perform their principle duty of thoroughly scanning the facts before passing an order to quash the proceedings in order to secure the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of process of the court. State of Maharashtra v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi, Crl. Appeal No. 2048 of 2014, decided on 19.09.2014.

To read the full judgment, refer SCCOnLine