Details |
In Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Limited and Ors v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and
Another6 this Court referred to State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and
Ors.7 and summarized and illustrated the category of cases in which power
under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code could be exercised. This
court observed and held:-
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable
offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section
156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview
of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(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.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions
of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act concerned, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(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 accused and with a view to spite him
due to private and personal grudge." [6 2005 (1) SCC 122; 7 (1992) Supp. 1
SCC 335]
The High Court clearly erred in law in dismissing the complaint, which
certainly disclosed an offence prima facie. At the cost of repetition, it
is reiterated that it was not for the High Court to enter the factual arena
and adjudicate the merits of the allegations. The appeal is, therefore,
allowed and the impugned order of the High Court quashing the complaint is
set aside. The first respondent shall proceed with further investigation in
accordance with law. ...V. Ravi Kumar =VS= State, Tamil Nadu, (Criminal),
2019 (1) [6 LM (SC) 126] ....View Full Judgment
|