Case: Som Mittal Vs. Govt. of Karnataka

H.K. Sema, J. 1. Leave granted. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28th March, 2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Petition No. 1535 of 2006 filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash cognizance of offence under Sections 25 and 30(3) of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 (in short the Act) by Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court III. 3. In view of the order that we propose to pass, it may not be necessary to recite the entire facts leading to the filing of the present appeal. Suffice it to say that an unfortunate incident had occurred on 13th December, 2005 in which late Smt. Pratibha Srikant Murthy was stated to have been murdered on her way to work from her residence. Pursuant to the aforesaid incident a complaint was filed on 27th December, 2005 against the appellant alleging violation of Sections 25 and 30(3) of the Act before the Metropolitan Magistrate. On 30th December, 2005, the Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under aforesaid sections of the Act. On 23rd March, 2006, a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the complaint and cognizance was filed before the High Court. The High Court, by its impugned order dated 28th March, 2006, dismissed the petition. Hence, the present appeal by special leave. 4. The High Court, by its impugned order, has altered the cognizance taken by the Magistrate under Section 25 read with Section 30(3) to that one under Section 25 read with Section 30(1) of the Act. The High Court was of the view that taking cognizance against the appellant cannot be found fault with and dismissed the petition. 5. It is noticed, therefore, that petition under Section 482 was filed at the threshold for quashing of the cognizance taken by the Magistrate. 6. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior counsel for the appellant has addressed us on merits of the case. He would contend that the appellant is a Managing Director and occupying the position of management and, therefore, he would be entitled for exemption under Section 3(h) of the Act. He would further contend that the appellant, being Managing Director of the company, would not be liable for prosecution under Section 25 read with Section 30(1) of the Act. 7. Per contra, Ms Anitha Shenoy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, contended that Chapter, VIII of the Act deals with a penal provision. She would contend that the language, Whoever contravenes employed in Section 30 of the Act would include the Managing Director. 8. At this stage we are not prepared to enter into the merits of the case on the basis of contentions urged by the respective counsel. Here are our reasons: 9. In a catena of decisions this Court has deprecated the interference by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code in a routine manner, It has been consistently held that the power under Section 482 must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in rarest of rare cases. Exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not the rule but it is an exception. The exception is applied only when it is brought to the notice of the Court that grave miscarriage of justice would be committed if the trial is allowed to proceed where the accused would be harassed unnecessarily if the trial is allowed to linger when prima facie it appears to Court that the trial would likely to be ended in acquittal. In other words, the inherent power of the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked by the High Court either to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 10. This Court, in a catena of decisions, consistently gave a note of caution that inherent power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. This Court also held that the High Court will not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extra-ordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whims and caprice. 11. We now refer to a few decisions of this Court deprecating the exercise of extra ordinary or inherent powers by the High Court according to its whims and caprice. 12. In State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha 1980CriLJ98 this Court pointed out at SCC p. 574: The High Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction committed a grave error by making observations on seriously disputed questions of facts taking its cue from affidavits which in such a situation would hardly provide any reliable material. In our opinion the High Court was clearly in error in giving the direction virtually amounting to a mandamus to close the case before the investigation is complete. We say no more. 13. In Hazari Lal Gupta v. Rameshwar Prasad 1972CriLJ298 this Court at SCC p. 455 pointed out: In exercising jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court can quash proceedings if there is no legal evidence or if there is any impediment to the institution or continuance of proceedings but the High Court does not ordinarily inquire as to whether the evidence is reliable or not. Where again, investigation into the circumstances of an alleged cognizable, offence is carried on under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court does not interfere with such investigation because it would then be the impeding investigation and jurisdiction of statutory authorities to exercise power in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. 14. In Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration 1974CriLJ802 the application filed by the accused under Section 561-A of the old Code for quashing the investigation was dismissed as being premature and incompetent on the finding that prima facie, the allegations in the FIR, if assumed to be correct, constitute a cognizable offence. 15. In Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana 1977CriLJ1900 , this Court pointed out: It surprises us in the extreme that the High Court thought that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it could quash a first information report. The police had not even commenced investigation into the complaint filed by the Warden of the University and no proceeding at all was pending in any court in pursuance of the FIR. It ought to be realized that inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. (emphasis supplied) 16. In State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan 1989CriLJ1005 this Court held that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and has given the working that in exercising that jurisdiction, the High Court should not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not. 17. In State of Haryana and Ors. (appellant) v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (respondents) 1992CriLJ527 , this Court after referring to various decisions of this Court, enumerated various categories of cases by way of illustration wherein the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised by the High Court. They are: (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, 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 concerned Act (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 the concerned Act, 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. 18. We may observe here that despite this Courts consistently held in catena of decisions that inherent power of the High Court should not be exercised according to whims and caprice and it has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, we often come across the High Court exercising the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a routine manner at its whims and caprice setting at naught the cognizance taken and the FIR lodged at the threshold committing grave miscarriage of justice. While it is true that so long as the inherent power of Section 482 is in the Statute Book, exercise of such power is not impermissible but it must be noted that such power has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, the sole aim of which is to secure the ends of justice. The power under Section 482 is not intended to scuttle justice at the threshold. 19. The rulings cited by Mr. K.K. Venugopal - East India Commercial Co. Ltd., Calcutta and Anr. v. The Collector of Customs, Calcutta 1983(13)ELT1342(SC) ; T. Prem Sagar v. The Standard Vacuum Oil Company Madras and Ors. (1964)ILLJ47SC ; Boothalinga Agencies v. V.T.C. Poriaswami Nadar [1969]1SCR65 ; and S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Anr. 2005CriLJ4140 are not applicable in the facts of this case at this stage in view of our view above.

Decision reasoning: 0[ds]9. In a catena of decisions this Court has deprecated the interference by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code in a routine manner, It has been consistently held that the power under Section 482 must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in rarest of rare cases. Exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not the rule but it is an exception. The exception is applied only when it is brought to the notice of the Court that grave miscarriage of justice would be committed if the trial is allowed to proceed where the accused would be harassed unnecessarily if the trial is allowed to linger when prima facie it appears to Court that the trial would likely to be ended in acquittal. In other words, the inherent power of the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked by the High Court either to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.10. This Court, in a catena of decisions, consistently gave a note of caution that inherent power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. This Court also held that the High Court will not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extra-ordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whims and caprice.18. We may observe here that despite this Courts consistently held in catena of decisions that inherent power of the High Court should not be exercised according to whims and caprice and it has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, we often come across the High Court exercising the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a routine manner at its whims and caprice setting at naught the cognizance taken and the FIR lodged at the threshold committing grave miscarriage of justice. While it is true that so long as the inherent power of Section 482 is in the Statute Book, exercise of such power is not impermissible but it must be noted that such power has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, the sole aim of which is to secure the ends of justice. The power under Section 482 is not intended to scuttle justice at the threshold.19. The rulings cited by Mr. K.K. Venugopal - East India Commercial Co. Ltd., Calcutta and Anr. v. The Collector of Customs, Calcutta 1983(13)ELT1342(SC) ; T. Prem Sagar v. The Standard Vacuum Oil Company Madras and Ors.(1964)ILLJ47SC ; Boothalinga Agencies v. V.T.C. Poriaswami Nadar [1969]1SCR65 ; and S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Anr. 2005CriLJ4140 are not applicable in the facts of this case at this stage in view of our view above.