L J 1 690 C5 c CriminalMisc No 251Mof2001 CriminalMisc No331411 of2002 4 r IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misca Noe251M of2001 Date ofDecisionl 01122009 1 Steel Authorityof India Limited IspatBhawan Lodhi 1 Road New Delhi through Padam Singh Branch ManagerSteel AuthorityofIndia Branch Sales Omce Jalandhar DisttaJalandhar 0 C 2e Arvind Pandey Chairman Steel Authorityof India Limited IspatBhawan Lodhi Road New Delhio 9 3e V Gujral ManagingDirector Steel Authorityof India 1 Limited Bhillai Steel Plant Bhillai Distt Durg MPl Z 4 SBa SinghManagingDirector Steel AuthorityofIndia Limited DurgapurPlant DurgapurDistte Durgapur MePela 4r I 5e AlC SinghDirector CommerciallSteel Authorityof 08 4 India Limited IspatBhawan Lodhi Road New Delhi 1 6e VS Jain Director Financel Steel Authorityof India 7 Limited IspatBhawan Lodhi Road New Delhle Z m 7 MC Moitra wronglymentioned as SeN Moitral Director Restructuringand Corporationl Steel AuthorityofIndia Limited IspatBhawan Lodhi Road New Delhi 8e SeCeKPatne Director Projectsl Steel Authorityof IndiaLimited IspatBhawan Lodhi Road New Delhie 9e Dre SK Director 2esearch and Steel Authority of India Limited Ranchi Jharkhand 10 Se Director Steel Authorityof IndiaLimited IspatBhawan Lodhi Road New Delhi 110 AeH Jang ongly mentioned as AS Jangl Ex DirectorSteel Authorityof India Limited Ministryof Civil Aviation Government of India New Delhia Rawat Seema 2012.10.22 11: 26 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4691 4 so C CriminalMisc N0 251M of2001 2 CriminalMisc No0331M of2002 fP 120 Dre Atul Sharma Director Steel Authorityof India Limited Ispat Bhawan Lodhi Road New Delhi presently Professor Economics Indian Statistical Institute 7 SJS San San Wal Marg New Delhie 130 DeBasu ExmChainman Securities TradingCorporation 1 of India Ltde Krishna Chamers 59 San Vithaldas De Marg New Marine Lines Mumbaie 0 14 Dre YeRK Reddy Chairman HRD Consultations 0 Private Limited 852a6951A11Road No 12 Banjara Hills C5 I 150 KeSeRajindraKumar Jre SecretaryMinistryof Steel Government ofIndia UdyogBhawan New Delhi Z 160 ReKeGarg SecretarySteel Authorityof India Limited IspatBhawan Lodhi Road New Delhi C 170 Dre Anil Dhawan Assistant General Manager I International Trade Division Steel Authorityof India 08 Limited IspatBhawan Lodhi Road New Delhi 18 Slll Dutta ExeChiefFinance ManagerSteel Authority e7 of India Limited presentlyresidingat 66 AllB Dre Z GS Bose Road Calcutta 1 tl 190 SeNe General ManagerFinancelSteel Authorityof India Limited Central Marketing Calcutta iredl presentlyresidingat 116C Rash Behari Avenue Ground Floorl Calcutta e PeIO ChatterjiGeneral Manager Steel Authorityof India Limited Central Marketing Organization Calcutta Retiredlpresentlyresidingat F D m67 Flat Noe6 Salt Lake City Calcuttae e ManojKumar ChiefMarketingPETI WR Mumbai 220 Re Nag General Manager Steel Authorityof India Limited CentralMarketingOrganizationCalcuttae 23e D Kobi wronglymentioned as O Kovil General ManagerSteel Authorityof India Limited Central Marketing Calcutta Rawat Seema 2012.10.22 11: 26 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4692 12 5 0 e CriminalM No 2510Mor2001 3 OirninalMisc No 20331aMof2002 1d 24e Girish Madan KeyAccounts ManagerSteel Authority ofIndia Limited Branch SalesOmce Ludhianae 25 P Ganesan wronglymentioned as P Ganeshananl Executive Director InchargelSteelAuthorityof India Lirnited Calcuttae 260 K Jagdishanan General ManagerOnternal Auditl Chennai presentlyresidingat 37 Perumal 0 NagarNanganallurChennai 0 27 DeNeMukherjeeDeputyPrincipalLaw 0cer Steel 0 Authority of India Limited Central Marketing OrganizationCWcuttae C5 280 PeK Sinha vronglymentioned as PRe Sinhal Exm I General Manager Lawl Steel Authorityof Jndia 4 Limited New Delhi presentlyresidingat 303 Shivalik Z Gaziabade 1 r 290 Padam Singh vronglymentioned as Padam Kumarl Branch Manager Steel Authorityof India Branch SalesOnlce Jalandhar 08 eeePetitioners Versus ewa le StateofPunjabe 2 Mls RajaSteel Works GT Road Mandi Gobindgarh Punjabe 3e Mls Ajit Cotton Ginning PressingDall and Steel RoUingMills GT Road Mandi GobindgarhPunjab Both through their common Sole Proprietor Sh JagdishRaj Bansal son of Sh Battan Lal Aggarwal residentofWard No 10 Mandi Punjabe Criminal Misc No 20331M of2002 Date ofDecisionl 01122009 1e JS Charlu the then ExecutiveDirector Jindal Vijay NagarSteelLimited VijayNagarKarnatakae Rawat Seema 2012.10.22 11: 26 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 693 LAll r e U CrimintilMisc No 251M of2001 4 CriminalMisc No 20331Mof2002 1 2e GS Garcha Director SteelAuthorityofIndia Limited IspatBhawan Lodhi Road New Delhi eeePetitioners Versus le StateofPunjab 1 2 Mls RajaSteel Works GTe Road Mandi Gobindgarh Punjab 0 0 3 Mls Ajit Cotton GinningPressingDaU and Steel Rolling Mills GoT Road Mandi Punjab C9 I both throughtheir common Sole ProprietorSh Jagdish Raj Bansal son of Sh Battan Lal Aggarwalresident of 4 ward No 10 Mandi GobindgarhPunjab tr CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER a5 Present Mre RS Cheema Senior Advocate with Ms Tarannum Cheema Advocate 4 for the petitioners 7 in both the petitionse Z t Mr SinghWasu DeputyAdvocate General m Punjabfor No l e State Mr Baldev SinghSenior Advocate with Mr Sudhir Sharma Advocate for Noe2 and 3e 4r R R R SHAM SUNDER Je This ordershall disposeof Criminal Misc No 251M of 20018tled as SteelAuthorityofIndia Limitedand othersVs State of Punjaband others and CriminalMisc No 20331 of 2002 titledas S Charlu the then Executive Director Jindal Vijay NagarSteelLimited VijayNagarKamatakaand anotherVs State Rawat Seema 2012.10.22 11: 26 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4694 CriminalMisc No 251M of2001 5 CriminalMisc No 20331Mof2002 r of Punjaband others under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the Criminal ComplaintNo 11211999and Criminal ComplaintNo 3712000 s7 the orders dated 30102000 in the r Oledby No 2 and3 pending in the Coun of 1 Judicial 1 Class Amloh Oistrict Sahib Punjabunder Sections 409 418 420 468 and 477A read with 0 0 Section 34 and 120B IPC and all the 32 C5 arising therefrom 2 The aforesaid were filed by JagdishRai 4r r Bansal Proprietor ofMls Ajit Cotton GinningPressing Dall c Steel 0 RollingMills and Mls RajaSteel Works on the that 3 accusedNos 2 to 19 Iverethe office bearersof accusedNo l ie C6 Steel of India Limited which was under the 4 3 eee Act It was stated that the firms besides Z 3 t lrOll and steel products from the Steel Authorityof India Limited were also converting the steel as its converslon agentsIt was further statedthat the flrms beingconverSlOO agents of the Steel Authorityof India Limited accusedNo 1 a hugeamount to the tune of crores of rupees WaS byit from timeto time It was 81rtherstatedthat as such hugeamount was due to the flrms against the Steel of India Limited It was further stated that on account of of the hugeamount by the Steel of India Limited a greatfinancial loss was caused to Rawat Seema 2012.10.22 11: 26 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 695 06f CriminalMiscNo251of2001 6 CriminalMisc No 20331Mof2002 them It was publishedin the local press that the flnns had becomeinsolvent It was further statedthat on account of the aforesaid from time to time about their insolvency beingthe handieworkof the accused their banking were 1 gotstoppedon 30O96 and as such theywere put in the stateof complete flnancialparalysisIt was irtherstatedthat aRercausing a 0 0 hugefinancial loss to the firms the accused illegally I C5 gottheir bank guaranteeencashed to the tune of Rs 137 crores I from the Central Bank of India Mandi on account of Z their failure to performthe obligations of some contract and none r of some dues It was further statedthat the accused had I Iilronglymentioned lll their letters tlom time to time that the 08 firms failed to pay some dues to the SteelAuthotyof nm India Limited justwith a vlew to getthe aforesaidbank guarantee Il 6 e encashedIt was furtherstatedthat in theyear 199596 theaccused Ll supplied1100 metnc tons of steel to the flrms to Rs 110 lacs againstthe bank guee of Rs 137 lacs It was rtherstatedthat on the basisof the deliveryorders for the aforesaidsteel the flrms had to lssue the delivery challans on the directionsof the accused without givingany exact valueof the materialon the challans It was fluther statedthat the priceto be bythe accused for the supplyof the aforesaid steel to the firms was asper the markettools meaning that the accused used to sell the steel according to market Rawat Seema 2012.10.22 11: 26 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 696 1 CriminalMlsc Ncl251M 012001 7 CriminalMisceNo0331M of2002 condition ignoringthe listed price It was further statedthat the accused used to sell the goodat Jalandhar below their listed price on an averagerebateof Rs 14001eper metric ton ie much lower than the marketpriceat Mandi by allowingsumcient 1 marginprice It was further stated that even before buyingthe material from the accused the flrms were required to 0 C give in the fonn of requisition lettersie dated 140296 I C5 and 130396 thattheywere readyto liR the same as per the market I tools or rebatescheme It was fwther statedthat insteadof charging Z the aforesaidrates as per rebatedpricethe accused chargedmuch Q higherpricesie listed pricein the invoices issuedbythem It was furtherstatedthat as such theaccused charged an excess amount of a5 Rs 15 lacs from the flrms in respectof the supplyof 4 W2 1100metrictons ofsteel It was furtherstatedthat even theaccused Z 1 gotencashedan excess amount through the Bank Guarantee instead ofthe listedpricewhich came to be Rs 12 lacs It was furtherstated that as such the accused got encashedbank guaranteeto the tune of Rs 137 lacs instead of Rs 110 lacs It was further statedthat even the accusedcould not get encashedthe bank guaranteeof Rs 110 lacs as theyowed very hugeamount to the tune of crores of to the flrms It was hlrther stated that the firms submittedthebank guarantee in advance for 110 to 120 per cent of the value of goodsIt was further statedthat the vide differentletters the accused to grant Rawat Seema 2012.10.22 11: 26 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4697 L1S Criminal Misc No 251aMof2001 8 CriminalMiscNo 20331Mof2002 rebate underthe tool of 1996 but they failed to do so It was furtherstatedthat when the Orms came to know thatthe accused were goingto getencashedthebank with a view to cover the illegallychargedpriceof Rs 1 la they them not to do s as the extended period thereo had not yet lapsedand the total materialsuppliedby the 0 C latter to the former was of the valumuch lower than the value of 0 the bank guaranteeIt was furtherstatedthat however the accused I with a dishonest intention got enchased the bank guaranteeof Z Rs 137 lacs thoughthe same stood unutilized by the to the tune of Rs 2700 lacs as the priceof the total material I suppliedwas lessthanthe total bank guaranteeIt was furtherstated 08 that the accused in connivance with each other issuedflctitious and 7 fabricatedinvoices justwith a view to squareup their accounts for Z depriving the flrms ofthe amountofrebate 6 as demandedvide different letters It was Alrther stated that the accused besides the principalamount of Rs 137 crores of the bank guarantee to the Snns were also the recurringlnterest and inventorysprofit V thereon Itwas irther statedthat as suchthe accused were bent uponcausingflnancial loss to the Orms and tamishing their It was Alrtherstatedthat the accused were legally bound by the terms and conditions of the business dealings enteredinto with the flrms and to render Rawat Seema 2012.10.22 11: 26 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 1 698 r 71 CriminaiMisc No 251M of2001 9 CriminalMisc No 20131eMof2002 m4 full details of accounts as asked for vide different letters It was further stated that it was very much 111the knowledgeof the accused that theywere entitledto recover a sum ofRs110 crores on thisaccount and owed a hugeamount to the Orms and inspiteof that they the amount the bank guaranteelyingwith them It was further stated 0 C thatall thecriminal acts were committed bythe accused within the I C5 of Jalandhar and Mandi It was further I statedthat the accused with the commondishonest intention and Z criminal conspiracycommitted various offences under Sections C 409 418 420 468 and 477A readwith Section34 and 120B IPC I the aforesaid were filed ln which the 08 orders dated 3002000 of the e e7 themto face trial for theaforesaidoffenceswere passedby theCourt ofSub Divisional Judicial Amloh Qm 3 I haveheard the Counsel for the partiesand have gone therecordofthe case carefully 4 The Counsel for the submittedthatthe Criminal No 11211999and Criminal ComplaintN 3712000 were filed with a malaflde intention in order to browbeat and the Chairman Membersof the Board of Directors andsenior officers No 1 with thepurposeof obtaining an unfairbut favourablesettlementby the flrms He furthersubmittedthat the firms even did not care to Rawat Seema 2012.10.22 11: 26 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 699 e CrlminalMiscNo 251Mof2001 10 CrlminalMisc No 20331aMof2002 1 satis as to how the individual were linked with the allegedactsof omission and commission He filrther submittedthat the were filed by No 2 and 3 with a tnaliciousintent in furtheranceofdesire to wreak vengeanceandto a harassthe in one way or the other and as such wasa C abuseof the processof law as a weaponof pressure He 0 C furthersubmittedthat the Orms are the conversion C5 agents of SteelAuthorityof India Limited Iie furthersubmittedthat I the steel was being to the Srms and they Z usedto convert the same He 8mher submittedthat the commercial 2 betweenthe finns and Steel Authorityof India Limited had been 111 existence since 1989 He ther 08 CO submittedthat exceptthe Branch Managerof Steel Authorityof 7 IndiaLimited no otherpetitioner was dealing with the Z ll ftrms He furthersubmittedthat therewas onlya disputewith regard tl to the priceof the steel suppliedto the Orms for converSlOO thereofHe further submittedthat pricechargedby the Steel Authorityof India Limited from the was not higher thanthe one agreed to be paidHe furthersubmittedthat had therebatebeengivento the Orms then the would have beenentitled to lesserpriceHe further submittedthat Slnce huge amount was due to the SteelAuthorityofIndia Limited againstthe the bank guaranteewhich had been fumishedby the flrms was invoked He rther Rawat Seema 2012.10.22 11: 26 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4700 CriminalMisc No 251eMof2001 11 CriminalMisc No 203310Mof2002 1 submitted that accordingto the provisionsof law such bank could be invoked bythe SteelAuthorityof India Limited He further submittedthat it was basically a disputeof civil nature which was converted lnto a disputeof criminal nature 1 justwitha view to put pressure upon the to come to the Ct clictatedtenns ofthe flrms He furthersubmittedthatthe 0 C Criminal ComplaintNo 11211999and Criminal ComplaintNo I 0 3712000and the ordersdated3002000 includingthe I beingthe complete abuseof the processof Cour were liable to be quashed 5 On the other hand the Counsel for the Cr submittedthatthe werenot flled with malafideintention a5 Theyfurther submittedthat a numberof documents were produced 4 m en the complaintThey hlrther submittedthat the Z C evidence was recordedby the Court below and ultimately on the 0 basis thereof it came to theconclusion that there were sufficient to against the and as such the orders them were TheyAlrther submittedthat at the time of fllingthe petitionunder Section 482 CrPC the Cour was not to go deeplnto themeritsof the case They 8lrthersubmittedthat the under Section 482 CrC couldonlybe ifthe Court comes to the conclusionthat the samewere attendedby malafidesor that no criminal offence from the contained in the same was madeout Theyfurther Rawat Seema 2012.10.22 11: 26 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4701 CriminalMisc No 2510Mof2001 12 CriminalMisc No 20331eMof2002 4 submittedthat even thedocumentsattachedwith the petitioncould not be taken into consideration for the purpose of comingto the conclusion as to whether the andthe orders as also the were liable to be quashed 1 Theyfurther submittedthat it was not a civil disputeThey r further submittedthat hugeamount of the firms was 0 C by the and as such they I C5 were liable for the criminal offences mentionedin the complaint Theyfurthersubmittedthat no groundfor quashing the Z the orders and the arising therefrom was madeout 6 After givingmy thoughtfulconsideration to the rival a5 contentions raisedby the Counsel for the partiesin my considered e4 7 opinionit is a fit case 111which the Criminal ComplaintNo Qm 11211999and Criminal Complaint No 3712000 3 the ordersdated 30102000 and the arising therefromqua the should be for the reasons to be recordedhereinafterIt is tritethatjurisdictionunderSection482 CrPCwhich saves the inherentpower ofthe HighCourt to make suchorders as may be necessaryto preventhe abuseof theprocess of any Court or otherwise to secure theends of justicehas to be exercisedsparinglyand with In exercising that the HighCourt would not embark upon an enqulr whetherthe in the complaint are likelyto be established Rawat Seema 2012.10.22 11: 26 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4702 ol e 7 CriminalMisc No51eM of2001 13 CriminalMisc No0331411of2002 W bythe evidenceor not That is the 81nctionof the trial Magistrate when the evidencecomes beforehim Thoughit is neitherpossible nor advisable to laydown any inflexible rules to such jurisdiction one thinghowever appearsto be clear that when the 1 HighCourt is called upon to exercise tliis jurisdictionto quasha 0 at the stageof the taking of an 0 C offence it is guidedby the whetherthose set I 0 out in the complaint or do not in law constitute or spellout any ofYence andthat resort to criminal would Z 111thecircumstancesamount to an abuseofthe processofthe Coun Q or not This Court has inherentpowers under Section482 CrC to act ex debitojustitiaeto do real and substantialjusticefor the 08 administrationof which alone it exists or to preventabuse of the 7 process of the Court Inherentpower under Section482 CrC can Z be exercisedl i1 to giveeffect to an orderundertheCode iil to preventabuseofthe processofcourtland iiil to otherwisesecure theendsofjustice 7 If any abuseof theprocess leadingto injusticeis brought to the notice of the Court then the Court would be justified111 injusticebyinvokinginherentpowers in the absenceof speciflcprovisions in the Statute Before touchingthe containedin the it would be to delineatethe of law on thepointlaid down bytheApexCourt as also Rawat Seema 2012.10.22 11: 26 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4703 2 CriminalMiscN 251Mof2001 14 CrinlinalMisc No0331M of2002 71 the ForeignCourts 111 some of the cases Reference to the following cases would revealthatthe Courtshave taken the view that theymust use this power to prevent injustice and secure theendsofjusticeThe EnglishCourtshavealso 1 used inherent power to achieve the same objectiveIt is generally agreed that theCrown Court hasinherentpower to protectitsprocess 0 C from e In ConneUvVseDPP 9641 AC 1254 Lord Devlin I C49 statedthat whereparticular criminal constitutean abuse of process theCourt is to re81seto allow the indictment Z to proceedto trial Lord Salmon in DPP Vs Humphnls a9771 AC l stressedthe of the inherent power when he I observedthat it is onlyifthe amounts to an abuseofthe a5 process ofthe Court andis and vexatious thattheJudge 11 has the power to intervene He further mentionedthat the Courts powerto preventsuch abuse is of greatconstitutional andshouldbejealously 8 RePeKOPUr VseState ofPuniabeAIR 196SCl 866 the Apex Court summarized some of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quashthe il whereit manifestly appearsthat there ls a legalbar againstthe institution or continuanceofthe iil where the 111 the flrst informationreport or complaint taken at their face value and 111 Rawat Seema 2012.10.22 11: 26 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4704 77 CriminalMisc No 2510Mof2001 15 CrimlnalMisc No 20331Mof2002 their entiretydo not constitute the offencealleged iiil where the constitute an offence but there 1S110legalevidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearlyor manifestly fails to prove the charge 1C 9 The ApexCoun in StmeofKarnataka VseLe Mu 5 0 and others 97712eSCC 699 observedthatthe wholesomepower C under Section 482 CrPC entitles the High Court to quasha C5 32 when it comes to the conclusion that allowingthe e to continuewould be an abuseofthe processofthe Coun Z 4 or that the ends of justicerequirethat the oughtto be b The HighCourtshave been investedwith inherentpowers 08 both in civil and criminal matters to achieve a salutarypublic C A Court oughtnot to be to into a weapon of harassmentor The Court Ll observedin thatcase thatendsofjustice were higherthantheendsof mere law must be administeredaccording to the laws framedby the This case has been followed 111a large number cases ofthis Court and otherCourts 10 In Chandnwal Sinh 8c others Vse Maharm Singh 0 anothere a98 1 SCC 466 in a landlord and tenant the criminal had been initiated the Apex Court observedin para 1 at page467 as under1 A frustratedlandlord after having met hiswaterlooin the hierarchy of Rawat Seema 2012.10.22 11: 26 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4705 CriminalMisc No 251M of200l 16 CriminalMisc No 20331eMof2002 i Civil Courts has further enmeshed the tenant 111 a frivblous criminal which prima facie appears to be an abuseofthe process of law The facts when statedare so tellingthat the further discussion mayappearto be 11 The ApexCourt noticed that the tendency of peuury was very much on the increase Unless the Courts come down heavily 0 C uponsuch persons the whole judicialprocess would come to I C5 ridicule The Court also observed that chagrinedand frustrated Iitigantsshould not be to giveventto their frustration by cheaply invoking thejurisdiction of thecriminal Court 12 The Apex Court lll Madhavrao Jiwaiao Sdndia 82 others Vs Sambhaiizw ChandroiiraoAnre 82 otherse1988111 C45 RCR Criminalle565 2 198811 SCC 692 observedin para 7 as 7 underl Z5 7 The legalpositionis well settled 11 that when a at the initial stageis askedto be quashedthe test to be appliedby the Court lS as to whether the uncontroverted as made prima facie establishthe offence It is also for the Court to take into considerationany specialfeatureswhich appear in a caseto considerwhetherit 1S and in the interest of justiceto permita to continue This is so on the basis that theCourt cannot be utilized for any obliquepurpose and where in the opinionof the Court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and thereforeno useful purpose is likely to be servedby allowinga criminal Rawat Seema 2012.10.22 11: 26 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4706 CriminalMisc No 251M of2001 17 CriminalMisc No 20331aMof2002 to continue the Court maywhile takinginto consideration the specialfacts of a case also quash the even thoughit may be at a stage Il 13 In State ofHarvana 8z others Vs Bhaian Lal 8 others 19911 RCR Oiminalle 383 001992Sum 110SCC 335 theApex rL Coutt lll the of of various relevant 0 C provisions ofthc CrlC underChapter XIV andofthe principles of I 0 law enunciatedbyit in a seriesofdecisions relating to theexercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitutionof r Z India or the inherent powers under Section 482 CrC gave the 5 r following of cases by way of illustration wherein such powercould be exercised either to preventthe abuseof the process a5 of the Court or otherwiseto secure the ends of justiceThus the tl 2 ApexCourt madeit clear that it may not be possibleto laydown any preclse clearlydefined and suciently channelize and tl inflexibleguidelines or rigidformulae andto givean exhaustivelist kindsofcases wherein such power should be exercised il Where the madein the first information report or the even i theyare taken at theirface value and accepted 111 their entiretydo not primafacie constituteany offence or makeout a case against theaccused iil Where the in the flrst information report and other materialsif any the FIR do not disclose a offencejusti67ing an Rawat Seema 2012.10.22 11: 26 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4707 1 CriminalMisc No51M of2001 18 CriminalMisc No 20331Mof2002 e by Police