Case: Rajiv Modi Vs. Sanjay Jain

be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences. It is also settled by a long course of decisions of this Court that for the purpose of exercising its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR or a complaint, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se; it has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations." (Para 4) 26) This Court in the case of V.C. Shukla v. State through CBI, 1980 Supp SCC 92, it was observed that : "it is the duty of the court to apply its judicial mind to the materials and come to a clear conclusion that a prima facie case has been made out on the basis of which it would be justified in framing charges." (Para 8) 27) Also in the case of Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I,(2004) 9 SCC 512 , it was observed that: "Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. But whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the said purpose the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree would be passed." (Para 139) "In ascertaining whether the plaint shows a cause of action, the court is not required to make an elaborate enquiry into doubtful or complicated questions of law or fact. By the statute the jurisdiction of the court is restricted to ascertaining whether on the allegations a cause of action is shown." (Para 151) 28) In Vijai Pratap Singh v. Dukh Haran Nath Singh,1962 Supp (2) SCR 675, this Court held that: "If the allegations in the petition, prima facie, show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact, or whether the petitioner will succeed in the claims made by him. By the statute, the jurisdiction of the court is restricted to ascertaining whether on the allegations a cause of action is shown: the jurisdiction does not extend to trial of issues which must fairly be left for decision at the hearing of the suit." (Para 9) 29) In view of the above principles, the Court on basis of the averments made in the complaint, if it is prima facie of the opinion that the whole or a part of cause of action has arisen in its jurisdiction, it can certainly take cognizance of the complaint. There is no need to ascertain that the allegations made are true in fact. 30) The only question, which remains to be considered, is, whether the Judicial Magistrate, Patna had the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint? 31) It is argued that the appointment of the appellants company as C&F Agent of the respondents company was agreed upon in Patna and the Letter of Appointment was also delivered at the address of the in-laws house of the appellant in Patna and therefore, it can be said that part of cause of action prima facie appears to have arisen in Patna. Therefore, Judicial Magistrate, Patna was justified in taking cognizance complaint and issuing process to the respondents. 32) In view of the above, in our considered opinion, the High Court has erred by going into merits of the case and deciding doubtful or complicated questions of law and fact while invoking its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. This is not the fit case where the High Court could have exercised its inherent powers under section 482 of the Code.33) The cardinal principles which requires to be kept in view while invoking powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been stated in the case of State of H.P. v. Pirthi Chand, (1996) 2 SCC 37 , where in this Court has observed that: "When the court exercises its inherent power under Section 482, the prime consideration should only be whether the exercise of the power would advance the cause of justice or it would be an abuse of the process of the court." (Para 13) "It is thus settled law that the exercise of inherent power of the High Court is an exceptional one. Great care should be taken by the High Court before embarking to scrutinise the FIR/charge- sheet/complaint. In deciding whether the case is rarest of rare cases to scuttle the prosecution in its inception, it first has to get into the grip of the matter whether the allegations constitute the offence. It must be remembered that FIR is only an initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into cognizable offence. After the investigation is conducted (sic concluded) and the charge-sheet is laid, the prosecution produces the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code in support of the charge-sheet. At that stage it is not the function of the court to weigh the pros and cons of the prosecution case or to consider necessity of strict compliance of the provisions which are considered mandatory and its effect of non-compliance. It would be done after the trial is concluded. The court has to prima facie consider from the averments in the charge-sheet and the statements of witnesses on the record in support thereof whether court could take cognizance of the offence on that evidence and proceed further with the trial. If it reaches a conclusion that no cognizable offence is made out, no further act could be done except to quash the charge-sheet. But only in exceptional cases, i.e., in rarest of rare cases of mala fide initiation of the proceedings to wreak private vengeance, the court may embark upon the consideration thereof and exercise the power." (Para 12)

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]In this case, it is observed, that, the jurisdiction of the courts depended in civil cases on a "cause of action" giving rise to a civil liability, and in criminal cases on the commission of an offence, and on the provisions made in the two Codes of Procedure as to the venue of the trial and other relevantIn view of the above principles, the Court on basis of the averments made in the complaint, if it is prima facie of the opinion that the whole or a part of cause of action has arisen in its jurisdiction, it can certainly take cognizance of the complaint. There is no need to ascertain that the allegations made are true inIn view of the above, in our considered opinion, the High Court has erred by going into merits of the case and deciding doubtful or complicated questions of law and fact while invoking its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. This is not the fit case where the High Court could have exercised its inherent powers under section 482 of the Code.33) The cardinal principles which requires to be kept in view while invoking powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been stated in the case of State of H.P. v. Pirthi Chand, (1996) 2 SCC 37 , where in this Court has observedthe court exercises its inherent power under Section 482, the prime consideration should only be whether the exercise of the power would advance the cause of justice or it would be an abuse of the process of the court." (Parais thus settled law that the exercise of inherent power of the High Court is an exceptional one. Great care should be taken by the High Court before embarking to scrutinise the FIR/chargesheet/complaint. In deciding whether the case is rarest of rare cases to scuttle the prosecution in its inception, it first has to get into the grip of the matter whether the allegations constitute the offence. It must be remembered that FIR is only an initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into cognizable offence. After the investigation is conducted (sic concluded) and theis laid, the prosecution produces the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code in support of theAt that stage it is not the function of the court to weigh the pros and cons of the prosecution case or to consider necessity of strict compliance of the provisions which are considered mandatory and its effect ofIt would be done after the trial is concluded. The court has to prima facie consider from the averments in theand the statements of witnesses on the record in support thereof whether court could take cognizance of the offence on that evidence and proceed further with the trial. If it reaches a conclusion that no cognizable offence is made out, no further act could be done except to quash theBut only in exceptional cases, i.e., in rarest of rare cases of mala fide initiation of the proceedings to wreak private vengeance, the court may embark upon the consideration thereof and exercise the power." (Para