Case: Central Bureau Of Investigation Vs. K.M.Sharan

on hand, would indeed secure the ends of justice." 31. This court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Ors. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Anr. (2005) 1 SCC 122 observed thus:- "It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers, court would be 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 complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto." 32. In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 736 , this court again cautioned about a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. The court noticed the prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. The court further observed that "any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged." 33. This Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr. (2006) 7 SCC 188 has reiterated the legal position. The Court observed that the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that the decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. 34. Now, the crucial question which arises for our adjudication is whether the case of the respondent falls under any of the categories as enumerated in the celebrated case of Bhajan Lal (supra). On the basis of the material available on record and the allegations levelled against the respondent in the FIR and the charge-sheet, it cannot be concluded that no ingredients of offence under section 120B read with section 193 IPC are present in the instant case.35. At this stage, the High Court in its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. was not called upon to embark upon the enquiry whether the allegations in the FIR and the charge-sheet were reliable or not and thereupon to render definite finding about truthfulness or veracity of the allegations. These are matters which can be examined only by the concerned court after the entire material is produced before it on a thorough investigation and evidence is led.36. In the impugned judgment, according to the settled legal position, the High Court ought to have critically examined whether the allegations made in the First Information Report and the charge-sheet taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety would prima facie constitute an offence for making out a case against the accused (respondent herein). 37. In order to examine and evaluate the allegations of the FIR and the charge-sheet on this parameter, we deem it imperative to set out sections 193 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code under which the FIR and charge-sheet have been filed. 38. Sections 193 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code read as under:- "193. Punishment for false evidence.—Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceedings, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine,and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.—(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both." 39. On careful scrutiny and analysis of the allegations incorporated in the FIR and the charge-sheet set out in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment, it is abundantly clear that ingredients of sections 193 and 120B IPC are clearly made out in the instant case setting out a cognizable offence justifying the registration of a case and investigation thereon.40. In our considered view, this case does not fall under any of the categories of cases formulated in Bhajan Lals case (supra) relied upon by the respondent calling for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction or inherent powers of the court to quash the FIR.41. It would not be appropriate to comment or express any opinion on the truthfulness or veracity of the allegations incorporated in the FIR or the charge-sheet because we would not like the trial Court to be influenced by any of the findings of this Court or the High Court in the trial of this case. All what we can say without any hesitation is that on the basis of the averments and allegations incorporated in the FIR and the charge-sheet, the High Court was not justified in quashing the FIR/charge-sheet while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to stifle a legitimate prosecution.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]21. 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. The 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 should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the 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 such magnitude that they 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 ought to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage.On analysis of this case, in our opinion, it really does not support the case of the respondent. The ratio of the judgment is clear that the extraordinary powers of the court under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where all allegations incorporated in the FIR or the complaint do not prime facie constitute any offence or make out a case against thethe basis of the material available on record and the allegations levelled against the respondent in the FIR and the charge-sheet, it cannot be concluded that no ingredients of offence under section 120B read with section 193 IPC are present in the instant case.35. At this stage, the High Court in its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. was not called upon to embark upon the enquiry whether the allegations in the FIR and the charge-sheet were reliable or not and thereupon to render definite finding about truthfulness or veracity of the allegations. These are matters which can be examined only by the concerned court after the entire material is produced before it on a thorough investigation and evidence is led.36. In the impugned judgment, according to the settled legal position, the High Court ought to have critically examined whether the allegations made in the First Information Report and the charge-sheet taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety would prima facie constitute an offence for making out a case against the accused (respondent herein).On careful scrutiny and analysis of the allegations incorporated in the FIR and the charge-sheet set out in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment, it is abundantly clear that ingredients of sections 193 and 120B IPC are clearly made out in the instant case setting out a cognizable offence justifying the registration of a case and investigation thereon.40. In our considered view, this case does not fall under any of the categories of cases formulated in Bhajan Lals case (supra) relied upon by the respondent calling for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction or inherent powers of the court to quash the FIR.41. It would not be appropriate to comment or express any opinion on the truthfulness or veracity of the allegations incorporated in the FIR or the charge-sheet because we would not like the trial Court to be influenced by any of the findings of this Court or the High Court in the trial of this case. All what we can say without any hesitation is that on the basis of the averments and allegations incorporated in the FIR and the charge-sheet, the High Court was not justified in quashing the FIR/charge-sheet while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to stifle a legitimate prosecution.