[2010] 12 S.C.R. 289

MANOJ MAHAVIR PRASAD KHAITAN

RAM GOPAL PODDAR AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1973 of 2010)

OCTOBER 8, 2010

[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: .

s. 482 - Quashing of proceedings - Pursuant to a dowry C case filed against the complainant by his daughter-in-law, a raid was conducted in his house by police accompanied by accused who was brother of his daughter-in-law - Thereafter, complaint filed alleging that the accused forced the police officers to search cupboards for seizing the passporl of his sister and in the absence of complainant stole two gold D bangles - On the basis of the complaint and verification statement of the complainant, magistrate took cognizance of offence punishable u/s.379 /PC - Revision filed by accused but withdrawn later- Petition uls.482 filed by accused- High Courl dismissed the petition holding that it was powerless and E the only remedy available with the accused was to again go before the revisional courl and get the matter restored - On appeal, held: The complaint deserved to be quashed because prima facie it was absurd and there was a whole lack of the bona fides on the parl of the complainant - High Courl F ought to have applied its mind to the fact situation - The complaint was wholly covered by the category (7) of the illustrative parameters enumerated in Bhajan Lat's case - High Courl is invested with the tremendous powers u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. to pass any order in the interest of justice - Therefore, G it should have looked into the a/legations with open mind and passed order in the interest of justice.

s. 482 - Scope of - Held: s. 482 is a guarantee against

289 H

A injustice - High Court while exercising its jurisdiction u/s. 482 could pass any order in the interest of justice - This power is available only to the High Court in contradistinction to the power of Sessions Judge uls. 397.

The sister of the appellant was allegedly harassed by 8 her in-laws for dowry. A complaint was filed by her under Section 498-A IPC against respondent no.1 who was her father-in-law. Respondent no.1 was arrested. The next day, he was released on bail. In pursuance of the said complaint, the police officers went to the matrimonial C home of appellant's sister for investigation. The appellant was also present there. The police conducted a raid in her matrimonial/home on 14.7.2004. On 17.7.2004, a written complaint was filed by respondent no.1 alleging that the appellant had stolen some gold ornaments D during that raid. In the verification statement recorded by respondent No. 1, he had stated that the appellant had come to his house with the police officers in connection with the criminal prosecution instituted by his sister and forced the police officers to take search of the cupboards E for seizing the passport of his sister. The appellant asked respondent no. 1 for the key of the cupboard and opened the cupboard and in the absence of respondent no. 1, stole two gold bangles weighing 60 grams. The appellant/ accused locked the cupboard and handed over the keys F to the respondent no. 1 who kept the same in his pocket and thereafter, he was arrested and taken to Rajasthan.

On that basis, it was stated that it was the appellant/ accused alone who had stolen the gold bangles, which fact probably came to the notice of respondent No. 1 only G after coming back to his house. On the basis of the complaint and the verification statement of respondent no. 1, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC and the process was issued. He then filed revision application challenging the issuance H of process. However, he withdrew the same later. The

PODDAR AND ANR.

appellant filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

A challenging the whole proceedings. The High Court, however, dismissed his petition holding that the only remedy left for the appellant was to go again before the Sessions Judge and get the matter restored. The instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the High Court.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The only material on the basis of which the Magistrate issued the summons was the complaint and the verification statement. There were .no other c allegations. On the face of it, the allegations were absurd and without any basis. The complaint was .liable -to be quashed because the complainant/respondent no. 1 wholly-lack the bona tides in filing such complaint which was .absurd. It is absurd to think that the appellant who D was present with the police party would venture to pocket the bangles in their presence. Further, .admittedly, after locking the locker, the keys were handed .over to respondent no. 1. Neither is it known nor has it been made clear as to when respondent no. 1 opened the locker again to find that the two gold bangles were stolen.

Be that as it may, the very look of the complaint is /enough to convince one about the absurdity of the allegations. When the complaint is seen in the backdrop

F of the prosecution of respondent no. 1 for offences under Section 498 IPC ar.d the allied offences, the absurdity becomes all the more prominent. Again there is no complaint against the two accompanying police officers.

They were not made accused in the complaint. The complaint was obviously with the indirect motive for hounding the appellant who was none else -but the G brother of the daughter-in-law of respondent no. 1 who had started the criminal proceedings. Where on .the face of it the absurd charges are levelled and there is a whole lack of the bona tides of the complainant/respondent no.1, there would be no fetter in using the powers under H

A Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 9, 10] [296-C-H; 297-A-C]

1.2. In the impugned judgment, the High Court had found itself to be powerless in view of the withdrawal of the criminal revision and had advised the parties to go back to the revisional Court and get it restored. The High 8 Court was not justified in advising the appellant to go back to the Sessions Judge and to get the criminal revision revived without going into the question whether such revision could be revived in law or not. The High Court was not powerless. The High Court itself was C exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., where it could pass any order in the interest of justice.

This power was available only to the High Court in contradistinction to the Sessions Judge who was only entertaining the revision application of the appellant D under Section 397 Cr.P.C. The High Court should have, therefore, applied its mind to the fact situation. It should have been realized that the complaint was wholly covered by category (7) of the illustrative parameters in the

E *Bhajan Lat's case. [Para 11] [297-D-G]

*State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp. (1) sec 335 - relied on.

1.3. When the criminal Court looks into the complaint, it has to do so with the open mind. True it is that, that is F not the stage for finding out the truth or otherwise in the

allegations; but where the allegations themselves are so absurd that no reasonable man would accept the same, the High Court could not have thrown its arms in the air and expressed its inability to do anything in the matter.

G Section 482 Cr.P.C. is a guarantee against injustice. The High Court is invested with the tremendous powers thereunder to pass any order in the interest of justice.

Therefore, this would have been a proper case for the High Court to look into the allegations with the openness H and then to decide whether to pass any order in the

 MANOJ MAHAVIR PRASAD KHAITAN v. RAM GOPAL 293

PODDAR AND ANR.

interests of justice. This was a case where the High Court A ought to have used its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

In that view, the order of the High Court is set aside and the criminal proceedings started by respondent no. 1 are quashed. [Paras 11, 12] [298-C-G]

Case Law Reference:

1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 relied on Paras 10, 11

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1973 of 2010.

From the Judgment & Order dated 30.08.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Application No. 2120 of 2007.

D.K. Thakur, D. Jha, Dr. V.P. Appan for the Appellant.

Shobha, Mohinder Pal Thakur, Arun Lal for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. This judgment will also dispose of the Transfer Petition beiilg T.P. (Crl.) No. 259/2008 filed on behalf of Smt. Rekha Kailash Poddar who is the daughter-in-law of Ram Gopal Poddar, respondent No. 1 herein.

3. The facts are very peculiar. Smt. Rekha Poddar who is

the daughter-in-law of the respondent No. 1 herein, is also the sister of the appellant herein. After the marriage allegedly she was harassed by her in-laws for dowry. Sh~. therefore, proceeded to file a complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with G Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against Ram Gopal Poddar, respondent No. 1 herein, who is her father-in-law. The respondent No. 1 was arrested for those offences on 15.7.2004 and was released on bail on th'e next day i.e. 16.7.2004. In pursuance of this complaint, the police officers from Nerul Police H

A Station and also from Rajasthan had gone to the matrimonial home at Mumbai for investigation, with whom the present appellant was also present. The police conducted a raid at the matrimonial house on 14.7.2004 when the appellant herein was also present. They probably wanted to seize the passport of the s sister of the appellant.

4. On 17. 7 .2004, a written complaint came to be filed in Nerul Police Station alleging that the appellant had stolen some gold ornaments during that raid. However, the police did not take the cognizance of that complaint. A criminal complaint, therefore, C came to be filed after about six months i.e. on 17.3.2005 in the

Court of 1st Class Judicial Magistrate at Vashi for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC against the appellant alone.

The cognizance was taken of this complaint on 2.4.2005 for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC and process came D to be issued.

5. The appellant, therefore, challenged the order issuing process by way of a Criminal Revision Application dated 5.7.2006 before the Sessions Judge at Thane. This Criminal Revision Application, however, was withdrawn on 7.5.2007, E though the withdrawal application was opposed by the complainant-respondent. According to the appellant, this was done without his knowledge or consent and he had not put his signatures on the withdrawal application. By order dated 7.5.2007, the Sessions Judge permitted withdrawal.

6. The appellant, therefore, moved Bombay High Court by way of a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), challenging the whole proceedings. He also proceeded to file a complaint against his lawyers in the Bar G Council of Maharashtra for misconduct. The High Court, however, dismissed his petition holding that the only remedy left for the appellant was to again go before the Sessions Judge and get the matter restored. It is this judgment of the High Court which is sought to be challenged before us by way of the present H appeal.

PODDAR AND ANR. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

7. Indisputably, there was a background against the A complaint filed involving the present appellant and that was the prosecution by the daughter-in-law of respondent No. 1 herein who was also the sister of the appellant herein. There can be no dispute that in the complaint there were allegations made of the theft of two gold bangles (Patli) weighing about 60 grams. We B have also seen the verification statement recorded by Ram Gopal Poddar, respondent No. 1, wherein he has stated that it was the accused (appellant herein) who accompanied ASI Shri Gupta and Hawaldar Jaiprakash Singh from Nerul Police Station. It is admitted that these police officers and the appellant/accused had c come to the house of Ram Gopal Poddar, respondent No. 1 in connection with the criminal prosecution instituted by the daughter-in-law of Ram Gopal Poddar, respondent No. 1, who was the sister of the accused/appellant. It is then stated that the accused/appellant forced ASI Shri Gupta to take search of D cupboards for seizing the passport of Smt. Rekha Poddar, daughter-in-law of respondent No. 1. The appellant asked respondent No. 1 for key of cupboard and opened the cupboard and in the absence of Ram Gopal Poddar, respondent No. 1, "they" stole two gold bangles weighing 60 grams. Therefore, it E was obvious that the criminal complaint was in retaliation of the criminal prosecution which was being faced by the respondent No. 1 herein. It was on the basis of the complaint and the verification statement of the complainant/respondent No. 1 alone that the Judicial Magistrate, Vashi took cognizance and issued F summons.

8. It is undoubtedly true that the appellant herein challenged it by way of a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Thane andvery. significantly, the said revision came to be withdrawn.

There does not appear to be any reason for such sudden and G inexplicable withdrawal. We have seen the reply to the revision filed by Ram Gopal Poddar, respondent No. 1. From there, it becomes apparent that the same role is ascribed and it is admitted therein that the passport was seized by the police officer. It is also suggested that thereafter, the appellant/accused H

A locked the cupboard and handed over the keys to the respondent No. 1 who kept the same in his pocket and thereafter, he was arrested and taken to Rajasthan. It is then suggested that key alongwith other things were handed over to the lawyer of the respondent No. 1. On this basis, it is suggested that it was the B appellant/accused alone who had stolen the gold bangles, which fact probably came to the notice of the respondent No. 1 only after coming back to Bombay.

9. The only material on the basis of which the Magistrate issued the summons was the complaint and the verification C statement. Beyond the allegations which we have already

mentioned, there are no other allegations. We feel on the face of it the allegations were absurd and without any basis. It is absurd to think that the appellant herein who was present with the police party (2 in No.) would venture to pocket the bangles in D their presence. Further, admittedly, after locking the locker, the keys were handed over to the respondent No. 1. Neither is it known nor has it been made clear as to when the respondent No. 1 opened the locker again to find that the two gold bangles were stolen. Be that as it may, the very look of the complaint is E enough to convince one about the absurdity of the allegations.

When the complaint is seen on the backdrop of the prosecution Of the respondent No. 1 for offences under Section 498 IPC and the allied offences, the absurdity becomes all the more prominent. Again there is no complaint against the two F accompanying police officers. They have not been made 9ccused in the complaint. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the complaint wholly lacks the bona fides and it was obviously with the indirect motive for hounding the appellant who was none else but the brother of the daughter-in-law of respondent No. 1 G who had started the criminal proceedings.

10. The learned Coun.sel for the appellant is, therefore, right in contending that the complaint had to be quashed, firstly, because it was absurd and secondly, because the complainant/ respondent No. 1 wholly lack the bona fides in filing such H complaint which was absurd. The learned Counsel for the

PODDAR AND ANR. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

respondent No. 1 vehemently argued that at this stage, what was A to be seen was only the contents of the complaint and if there appeared the basic contentions indicating committing of crime by the appellant/accused, then the Courts would not interfere with the same and leave the parties to lead evidence during the ensuing trial, rely!ng on the oft-quoted decision in State of B Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335]. There can be no dispute about the law laid down in that case. However, where on the face of it the absurd charges are

levelled and there is a whole lack of the bona fides of the complainant/respondent No.1, in our opinion, there would be no c fetter in using the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

11. It was pointed out that the criminal revision against the issuance of summons was withdrawn. We were, therefore, taken to the High Court's judgment, where the High Court has found itself to be powerless in view of the withdrawal of the criminal D revision and had advised the parties to go back to the revisional Court and get it restored. We do not think that the High Court was justified in advising the appellant to go back to the Sessions Judge and to get the criminal revision revived without going into the question whether such revision could have been revived in E law or not. We observe that the High Court was not powerless.

The High Court itself was exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., where the High Court could pass any order in the interests of justice. This power was available only to the High Court in contradistinction to the Sessions Judge who was only F entertaining the revision application of the appellant under Section 397 Cr.P.C. The High Court should have, therefore, applied its mind to the fact situation. It should have been realized that the complaint was wholly covered under the 7th circumstance in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (cited supra), which is as under:- G

"7.

Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the H

accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

It was also covered under 3rd circumstance in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (cited supra), which suggests:- B "3.

Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused." c We reiterate that when the criminal Court looks into the complaint, it has to do so with the open mind. True it is that that is not the stage for finding out the truth or otherwise in the allegations; but where the allegations themselves are so absurd

0 that no reasonable man would accept the same. the High Court could not have thrown its arms in the air and expressed its inability to do anything in the matter. Section 482 Cr.P.C. is a guarantee against injustice. The High Court is invested with the tremendous powers thereunder to pass any order in the interest E of justice. Therefore, this would have been a proper case for the High Court to look into the allegations with the openness and then to decide whether to pass any order in the interests of justice. In our opinion, this was a case where the High Court ought to have used its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

12. In view of the fact, we ordinarily would have sent the matter back to the High Court, but there is no point now in remanding the matter back to the High Court in view of the pendency of this matter for last six years. In that view, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and quash the G criminal proceedings started by the respondent No. 1 vide criminal case No. 194 of 2005.

13. In view of this order, it will not be necessary to pass any order in the transfer petition which seeks the transfer of the very complaint which we have quashed herein.

D.G.

Appeal allowed.