Case: M/S. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. And Others Vs. S Md. Sharaful Haque And Others

decision in a case where the entire 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 magnitude and 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 will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. (See: Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992 (4) SCC 305 ), and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar (AIR 1964 SC 1 ). It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings. (See: Dhanalakshmi vs. R. Prasanna Kumar (1990 Supp SCC 686), State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma (AIR 1996 SC 309 ), Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995 (6) SCC 194 ), State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan (AIR 1999 SC 1044 ), State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma (1996 (7) SCC 705 ), Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997 (2) SCC 397 ), Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (AIR 1996 SC 2983 ) and Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi (1999 (3) SCC 259. 10. The above position was recently highlighted in State of Karnataka vs. M. Devendrappa and Another (2002 (3) SCC 89 ). 11. The factual position as highlighted above clearly goes to show that the complainant had not come to Court with clean hands. There was no explanation whatsoever for the inaction between 1995 and 2001. The High Court seems to have been swayed by the fact that the appellants have rejected claim of the complainant on 5.12.2001. If failed to notice that the communication dated 5.12.2001 was in response to the letter of the complainant dated 24.11.2001. 12. Section 468 of the Code deals with delay in taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. If reads as follows: 468. BAR TO TAKING COGNIZANCE AFTER LAPSE OF THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION: (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be - (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only: (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. (3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment. 13. The learned Magistrate has issued process in respect of offence under Section 418 IPC. The punishment provided for said offence is imprisonment for three years. The period of limitation in terms of Section 468 (2) (c) is 3 years. That being so, the Court could not have taken cognizance of the offence. Section 473 of the Code provides for extension of period in certain cases. This power can be exercised only when the Court is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice. Order of learned Magistrate does not even refer to either Section 468 or Section 473 of the Code. High Court clearly erred in holding that the complaint was not hit by limitation. As noted above, there was not even a reference that the letter dated 5.12.2001 was in response to the letter of complainant dated 24.11.2001. The factual position clearly show that the complaint was nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of law and this is a case where the power under Section 482 should have been exercised. The High Court unfortunately did not take note of the guiding principles as laid down in Bhajan Singhs case (supra), thereby rendering the judgment indefensible.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]13. The learned Magistrate has issued process in respect of offence under Section 418 IPC. The punishment provided for said offence is imprisonment for three years. The period of limitation in terms of Section 468 (2) (c) is 3 years. That being so, the Court could not have taken cognizance of the offence. Section 473 of the Code provides for extension of period in certain cases. This power can be exercised only when the Court is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice. Order of learned Magistrate does not even refer to either Section 468 or Section 473 of the Code. High Court clearly erred in holding that the complaint was not hit by limitation. As noted above, there was not even a reference that the letter dated 5.12.2001 was in response to the letter of complainant dated 24.11.2001. The factual position clearly show that the complaint was nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of law and this is a case where the power under Section 482 should have been exercised. The High Court unfortunately did not take note of the guiding principles as laid down in Bhajan Singhs case (supra), thereby rendering the judgment indefensible.