Case: Rajib Ranjan  Vs. R.Vijaykumar

The Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (for short the CSEB) issued an advertisement inviting tender (NIT) bearing No. T-136/2004 dated 02.06.2004 for its work at Hasedeo Thermal Power Station (Korba West) towards Designing, Engineering, Testing, Supply, Erection & Commission of HEA Ignition system. The applications received there under were required to be processed in three stages successively namely; Part-I (EMD); Part-II (Techno-Commercial Criteria) and Part III (Price Bid). The respondent herein submitted an application on 26.08.2004 as Chief Executive Officer of M/s Control Electronics India (CEI) requesting for Tender Document. The application was rejected on the ground that it was accompanied by incomplete documents i.e. non-submission of documentary evidence of past performance and experience of the respondent. The respondent made a complaint dated 06.09.2004 against appellant No. 3 herein alleging that the Tender Documents were not issued to the respondent. It was followed by several letters requesting for issuance of Tender Documents. He was informed that rather than pressurising the appellants here or other officials, he should furnish documents as per pre-qualifying condition of the Tender. In response thereto, vide his letter dated 05.11.2004, the respondent filed a copy of purchase order dated 28.01.2002 placed by Jharkhand State Electricity Board (for short the JSEB) and assured to supply other documentary evidence (performance report) subsequently. On such assurance, the Tender Documents were issued to the respondent. The respondent vide his letter dated 08.12.2004, mentioned that the Performance Report was enclosed in Part-II. However, the said report was not found enclosed and even after repeated requests from the CSEB to furnish documents, respondent did not fulfill the necessary requirement. As the respondent did not submit the necessary documents, the CSEB sought the information from the Chief Engineer of JSEB (arrayed in the complaint as accused No.2) vide letter dated 10.12.2004 about the performance of the respondent. Appellant No.2 herein was also deputed to get the desired information from JSEB. After meeting the officials of JSEB, appellant No.2 submitted his report stating that the works carried out by the respondent were not satisfactory as many defects were found therein. As per the appellants, even technical expertise was sought from SE (ET&I) KW (CSEB) and found that the respondent was not technically suitable as per the technical vetting and comparative data of SE (ET&I) KW letter dated 04.02.2005. On that basis, tender of the respondent was rejected. The appellants submit that as an outburst, in not getting the Tender in his favour, the respondent made complaints alleging irregularities to various fora including the State Government, which ordered the CSEB to conduct an enquiry. The CSEB submitted its report on 21.02.2006 stating that there were no such irregularities and that the respondent had not furnished the necessary documents despite repeated requests. At this stage, the respondent filed the Civil Suit (26-A/06) before the Civil Judge Class-II, Korba against the CSEB. However, the respondent moved an application seeking to withdraw the said suit. In any case he did not appear on the date fixed and accordingly the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 12.09.2006. The respondent herein then filed a Writ Petition No.2951 of 2006 before the Chhattisgarh High Court which was dismissed on 25.06.2007. Even costs of Rs.25,000/- was imposed while dismissing the writ petition with the observations that it was abuse of the process of Court. Thereafter, SLP No.15897 of 2007 was preferred by the respondent which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 14.09.2007. After the exhaustion of these remedies, albeit unsuccessfully, the respondent filed a complaint before K.K. Nagar P.S., Thirucharapalli, Tamil Nadu. The police authorities refused to register the same on the ground that it is a civil dispute. It is, thereafter, that the respondent filed the said Criminal Complaint under Sections 120-B, 468, 420 & 500 IPC before the trial Court, which was registered as C.C. No. 183/07 and the trial Court issued summons to the appellants herein and accused No.1 (Successful Bidder) & accused No. 2 (then Chief Engineer, JSEB). Petitions of the appellants seeking quashing of the said complaint have been dismissed by the order of the High Court, which is impugned before us.3. A reading of the said complaint reveals the following broad allegations levelled by theThe respondent/complainant alleges that the appellants and accused No.1 (Successful Bidder) & accused No. 2 (then Chief Engineer, JSEB) had conspired secretly to disentitle thecompany by creating a discredit and for the said purpose, they were in constant touch so as to create the said Performance Report Cum Certificate, which was issued by accused No.2.(b) The respondent/complainant alleges that the said conspiracy started with an agreement entered into by the 1st accused and the appellants herein and they planned to fabricate the said certificate dated 28.12.2004. For this purpose, accused No. 2 was approached so as to tailor the certificate totally discrediting the CEI (Company of the Complainant) with reference to supply and service relationship with Patratu Thermal Power Station (forshort the PTPS) and JSEB.(c) The respondent/complainant alleges that the said Certificate cum Report is false, fabricated, motivated and malafide and the same was contrary to the minutes of meeting that the complainant and his officials had with the officials of PTPS and JSEB. He further alleges that for the said reasons, the accused No. 2 was demoted from his post.(d) The respondent/complainant alleges that on suspicion of such Certificate Cum Report, the complainant visited the CSEB and on verifying about the same, he found that the said tender was being given to Company of the 1st accused against theCompany and so he wrote a letter to the Chief Secretary and Chairman of JSEB for verifying and cancelling such certificate. He also wrote to many officials of the CSEB.(e) The respondent/complainant alleges that the said Certificate is perse defamatory as against thecompany and is a crude attempt to favour accused No.1 by spoiling the image of the Complainants company. He further alleges that this caused a wrongful loss to thecompany by robbing its due chance to get a contract for the Boiler Plant Units at Korba.

Court's reasoning:
Reference to the following cases would reveal that the courts have consistently taken the view that they must use this extraordinary power to prevent injustice and secure the ends of justice. The English courts have also used inherent power to achieve the same objective. It is generally agreed that the Crown Court has inherent power to protect its process from abuse. In Connellyv. DPP, 1 1964 AC1254 Lord Devlin stated that where particular criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process, the court is empowered to refuse to allow the indictment to proceed to trial. Lord Salmon in DPPv. Humphrys, 1977 AC 1stressed the importance of the inherent power when he observed that it is only if the prosecution amounts to an abuse of the process of the court and is oppressive and vexatious that the judge has the power to intervene. He further mentioned that the courts power to prevent such abuse is of great constitutional importance and should be jealously preserved.46. The court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. On analysis of the aforementioned cases, we are of the opinion that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts under Section 482 CrPC though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when it is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the statute itself and in the aforementioned cases. In view of the settled legal position, the impugned judgment cannot be