Case: Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. A. Ravishankar Prasad &amp; Others

shut the mouth of the prosecution from adducing evidence against this accused. Thus, I do not like to pass any order in favour of the accused. The prayer for discharge of accused no. 7, Rumi Dhar stands rejected. Let the case proceed. Fix 7.2.07 for consideration of charge. The sureties must produce all the accused persons on that date." 35. The facts of the instant case are quite akin to Rumi Dhar (supra)s case. In the instant case, the charge-sheet clearly reveal substantial material on record making a clear case under section 120-B read with section 420 IPC against the respondents and their connivance with the bank officials. 36. The High Court in the impugned judgment has misunderstood and misapplied the ratio of the three-Judge Bench of this court in Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. V. State of Uttarachal & Ors. 2007(12) SCALE 15 to the facts of this case. One of us (Bhandari, J.) was the author of the said judgment. The ratio of the said judgment is in para 24 at page 25 which reads as under:- "Inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute." 37. The court in para 27 also observed that inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. 38. Let us consider the facts of this case and apply the ratio of Goswamis case (supra) where facts are as follows:- (I) allegations are that accused have committed serious offences such as forgery, fabrication of documents and used those documents as genuine; (II) allegations are that accused/respondents herein, A. Ravishankar Prasad and A. Manohar Prasad have entered into a conspiracy with the Chairman and Managing Director and other officials of the Indian Bank, Chennai with the object of cheating the Indian Bank in the matter of recommending, sanctioning, disbursing huge credit facilities running over hundreds of crores. (III) Trial of all four cases are at advanced stage in which 92 witnesses have already been examined. 39. While applying the ratio of Goswamis case (supra), how any court in its legitimate exercise of power under section 482 Cr.P.C. quash the proceedings against accused A. Ravishankar Prasad and A. Manohar Prasad in the face of aforesaid allegations. In the instant case, wrong application of the ratio of the said judgment has led to grave miscarriage of justice. 40. Careful analysis of all these judgments clearly reveals that the exercise of inherent powers would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of the each case. The object incorporating inherent powers in the Code is to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure ends of justice.41. Both English and the Indian courts have consistently taken the view that the inherent powers can be exercised in those exceptional cases where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if are taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.42. When we apply the settled legal position to the facts of this case it is not possible to conclude that the complaint and charge-sheet prima facie do not constitute any offence against the respondents. It is also not possible to conclude that material on record taken on face value make out no case under section 120-B read with section 420 IPC against the respondents. Prima facie, we are of the opinion that this is one case where adequate material is available on record to proceed against the respondents.43. In our considered view it was extremely unfortunate that the High Court in the impugned judgment has erroneously invoked inherent power of the court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court ought to have considered the entire material available to establish a case against the respondents under section 120-B read with section 420 IPC. It is significant that the respondents and the other bank officials share the charges under section 120-B read with section 420 IPC. Quashing the charges against the respondents would also have very serious repercussions on the pending cases against the other bank officials.44. In four cases, 92 witnesses have already been examined. The trial of the case was at the advanced stage. At this sage, the High Court has seriously erred in quashing the charges against respondent nos.1 and 2.45. Quashing the proceedings at that stage was clearly an abuse of the process of the court. The court neither considered the entire material nor appreciated the legal position in proper perspective. The impugned judgment is wholly unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. Unfortunately, because of unnecessary interference by the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. the trial of this case could not be completed and concluded.46. Before parting with the case we would like to observe that mere re-payment of loan under a settlement cannot exempt the accused from the criminal proceeding in the facts of this case.47. We would like to observe that any observations made in this case have been made to decide the present case. The trial court may decide the case without being influenced by any observations made by this court.48. In this view of the fact, in the interest of justice we direct that the trial be now completed as expeditiously as possible. The trial court is directed to conduct the trial on day to day basis and parties are directed to cooperate with the trial court. The trial court shall ensure that unnecessary adjournments be avoided and trial be concluded as expeditiously as possible.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]15. Undoubtedly, the High Court possesses inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These inherent powers of the High Court are meant to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.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 ensure 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 with regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage.Careful analysis of all these judgments clearly reveals that the exercise of inherent powers would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of the each case. The object incorporating inherent powers in the Code is to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure ends of justice.41. Both English and the Indian courts have consistently taken the view that the inherent powers can be exercised in those exceptional cases where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if are taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.42. When we apply the settled legal position to the facts of this case it is not possible to conclude that the complaint and charge-sheet prima facie do not constitute any offence against the respondents. It is also not possible to conclude that material on record taken on face value make out no case under section 120-B read with section 420 IPC against the respondents. Prima facie, we are of the opinion that this is one case where adequate material is available on record to proceed against the respondents.43. In our considered view it was extremely unfortunate that the High Court in the impugned judgment has erroneously invoked inherent power of the court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court ought to have considered the entire material available to establish a case against the respondents under section 120-B read with section 420 IPC. It is significant that the respondents and the other bank officials share the charges under section 120-B read with section 420 IPC. Quashing the charges against the respondents would also have very serious repercussions on the pending cases against the other bank officials.44. In four cases, 92 witnesses have already been examined. The trial of the case was at the advanced stage. At this sage, the High Court has seriously erred in quashing the charges against respondent nos.1 and 2.45. Quashing the proceedings at that stage was clearly an abuse of the process of the court. The court neither considered the entire material nor appreciated the legal position in proper perspective. The impugned judgment is wholly unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. Unfortunately, because of unnecessary interference by the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. the trial of this case could not be completed and concluded.46. Before parting with the case we would like to observe that mere re-payment of loan under a settlement cannot exempt the accused from the criminal proceeding in the facts of this case.47. We would like to observe that any observations made in this case have been made to decide the present case. The trial court may decide the case without being influenced by any observations made by this court.48. In this view of the fact, in the interest of justice we direct that the trial be now completed as expeditiously as possible. The trial court is directed to conduct the trial on day to day basis and parties are directed to cooperate with the trial court. The trial court shall ensure that unnecessary adjournments be avoided and trial be concluded as expeditiously as possible.