In Criminal Appeal No.256 of 2022-SC-Jurisdiction u/s 482 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly with caution, for securing ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in abuse of process of law: SC 
Justices Ajay Rastogi & C.T. Ravikumar [30-01-2023]

Read Judgment: USHA CHAKRABORTY & ANR V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR 

Mansimran Kaur

New Delhi, January 31, 2023: The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal instituted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  seeking quashing of F.I.R. under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code  where the dispute involved was essentially of civil nature and the parties had given a cloak of criminal offence in the issue. 

The Division bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar allowed the appeal by special leave to be directed against the final judgment passed by the Calcutta High Court by observing that permitting continuance of the criminal proceedings against the appellants in the aforesaid circumstances would result in abuse of the process of Court and also in miscarriage of justice.

The High Court declined to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. holding that perusal of the case diary as also the materials appearing there from prima facie made out a case for investigation. In that view of the matter, the interim order granting stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the registration of the stated F.I.R. was vacated and the stated petition was dismissed.

After considering the submissions, the Court noted that the question to be decided was  whether the High Court was justified in declining to invoke the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated April 5, 2017  for forwarding the application filed by the respondent  carrying allegations qua the appellant for investigation under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., the consequential registration of the F.I.R. and the investigation pursuant thereto qua the appellant, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the settled position in the matter of exercise of inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C.

In view of the same, the Court noted, “There can be no doubt with respect to the position that jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised with care and caution and sparingly. To wit, exercise of the said power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of process of law”

Reference was placed on the cases namely, Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors,  Vesa Holdings Private Limited and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors and Kapil Aggarwal and Ors. v. Sanjay Sharma and Ors. 

It was further noted by the Court that the respondent alleged commission of offences under Sections 323, 384, 406, 423, 467, 468, 420 and 120B, IPC against the appellants.

 A bare perusal of the said allegation and the ingredients to attract them, as adverted would reveal that the allegations were vague and they did not carry the essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences. 

There is absolutely no allegation in the complaint that the appellants had caused hurt on the respondent so also, they did not reveal a case that the appellants had intentionally put the respondent in fear of injury either to himself or another or by putting him under such fear or injury, dishonestly induced him to deliver any property or valuable security, the Court noted. 

The same is the position with respect to the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 423, 467, 468, 420 and 120 B, IPC. The ingredients to attract the alleged offences and the nature of the allegations contained in the application filed by the respondent would undoubtedly make it clear that the respondent had failed to make specific allegation against the appellants in respect of the aforesaid offences. 

For all these reasons, the Court was of the considered view that this case invited invocation of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR registered based on the direction of the Magistrate Court in the afore-stated application and all further proceeding in pursuance thereof.  

The Court also stated that it had no hesitation to hold that permitting continuance of the criminal proceedings against the appellants in the aforesaid circumstances would result in abuse of the process of Court and also in miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was accordingly allowed.