Page 1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 775 OF 2013

Manoj Kumar Sharma & Ors. .... Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

R.K. Agrawal, J.

1)This appeal has been filed against the judgment and

order dated 27.09.2012 passed by the High Court of

Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

No. 765 of 2011 whereby learned single Judge of the High

Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellants herein.

2)Brief facts:

(a)Manoj Kumar Sharma-the appellant-accused, who was

serving in the Indian Air Force at the relevant time, got

married to one Nandini on 27.04.1999. On 20.09.1999,

1

Page 2 Nandini Sharma (since deceased) committed suicide at her

matrimonial home. The information with regard to the same

was lodged by the Security Officer of the Indian Air Force at

Police Station Mulana, District Ambala. On 22.09.1999, post

mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased and the

body was handed over to the relatives for performing last rites.

(b)On 22.09.1999, the officer in-charge of the investigation,

P.S. Mulana submitted a report being No. 26 stating that there

was no sign of foul play in the occurrence. On the basis of the

investigation, on 24.01.2000, a Final Report was submitted

before the sub-Divisional Magistrate which got accepted on

19.02.2000. Simultaneously, a Court of Inquiry (CoI) was also

convened to investigate into the alleged role of the

appellant-accused but after completion of the Inquiry the case

was finally closed on 25.07.2000.

(c)After five years of the closing of the above case, a fresh

First Information Report (FIR), being No. 194 dated

29.05.2005 was got registered by Shri Shashi Bhushan

Sharma (Respondent No. 2 herein) – brother of the deceased

against Manoj Sharma- appellant No. 1 herein, Heera Lal

2

Page 3 Sharma, Mahaveer Prasad Sharma and Smt. Hem Lata

Sharma-the father, uncle and mother of the appellant No. 1

herein respectively at P.S. Bhillai Nagar, District Durg under

Sections 304B, 498A and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (in short ‘the IPC’).

(d) Being aggrieved by the filing of the FIR, the appellants

herein filed a Writ Petition being No. 2890 of 2005 before the

High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, vide order

dated 25.07.2005, directed for the continuance of the

investigation of the alleged offence.

(e)On 04.04.2007, the said writ petition was withdrawn

with the leave of the court and the appellants herein filed

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being No. 612 of 2007 before

the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) for quashing of the FIR.

Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide order dated

17.10.2011, allowed the proceedings to continue with a

direction to the police to hold fair and proper investigation to

ensure logical conclusion of the same without unnecessary

delay.

3

Page 4 (f)An application for modification being Criminal Misc.

Petition No. 732 of 2011 was filed for modification of the order

dated 17.10.2011 in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition 612 of

2007 on the ground that during the pendency of the judgment

in the matter, the chargesheet came to be filed by the police

before the court which was allowed vide order dated

17.11.2011.

(g)Further, the appellants herein filed Criminal Misc.

Petition being No. 765 of 2011 under Section 482 read with

Section 397 of the Code before the High Court for quashing of

charge sheet and cognizance taken thereof by the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Durg dated 03.09.2011 and

13.10.2011 respectively in Criminal Proceeding No. 805 of

2011 arising out of Crime No. 194 of 2005 registered at P.S.

Bhilai Nagar, District Durg. Learned single Judge of the High

Court, vide order dated 27.09.2012 dismissed the petition filed

by the appellants herein.

(h)Aggrieved by the abovesaid order, the appellants have

preferred this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

4

Page 5 (3)Heard Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the

appellants-accused and Mr. Atul Jha, learned counsel for the

respondent-State.

Rival Submissions:

(4)Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the

appellants vehemently contended that since the place of

incident is Haryana, the FIR and the cognizance of the offence

could not have been taken at Durg. Learned senior counsel

further submitted that the earlier or the first information in

regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the

requirement of Section 154 of the Code and there cannot be

second FIR or fresh investigation of any subsequent

information in respect of the same cognizable offence. The

investigation was carried out at Durg in Chhattisgarh and the

deceased never resided at the said place after the marriage

thus the court at Durg had no jurisdiction to proceed with the

prosecution. Learned senior counsel finally contended that

the present charge sheet is a sheer abuse of the process and

has been filed without any basis on an FIR which was lodged

after 5 (five) years that too on the basis of anonymous letters.

5

Page 6 (5) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State

submitted that no FIR was lodged at Mulana Police Station nor

was there any investigation carried out into any allegation of

commission of a cognizable offence, but upon receipt of

information regarding death, the police had conducted inquiry

under Section 174 of the Code and submitted a report to the

sub-Divisional Magistrate. He further submitted that it is not

a case where the police registered FIR, carried out

investigation and submitted a report under Section 173 of the

Code rather the case was closed stating that no offence was

found to be committed and accepted by the court of competent

jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged

for the first time in the P.S. Bhilai Nagar and it cannot be said

to be the second FIR of the same incident. The reports of the

Office of the Scene of Crime Unit, Durg and the Director,

Medico Legal Institute, the contents of the FIR, the case diary

statements are prima facie sufficient for initiation of criminal

proceedings for the offence under Sections 304B and 498A of

the IPC. Learned counsel further submitted that as regards

the question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned; the part of

6

Page 7 cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the

court at Durg. He finally submitted that a full enquiry into the

cause of death of the deceased should be made and the ends

of justice would be best served when the accused would be

found guilty for her unnatural death.

(6)We have carefully perused the entire records including

depositions and documents and considered the rival

contentions.

Discussion:

(7)Nandini (since deceased) was married to appellant No. 1

herein on 27.04.1999 at Durg. On 20.09.1999, she died

under suspicious circumstances at her matrimonial home at

Ambala. As per the initial investigation, the cause of death

was hanging. Upon receipt of information, P.S. Ambala

proceeded to hold an inquiry under Section 174 of the Code.

During investigation, no offence was found to have been

committed. It may be mentioned here that Shri R.P.

Sharma-father of the deceased and other relatives were also

present during the investigation. A report of the inquiry made

under Section 174 of the Code was forwarded to

7

Page 8 sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ambala which was accepted and

the case was finally closed. Simultaneously, an inquiry was

also conducted by the Indian Air Force which resulted in the

closure of the case while holding that no foul play is suspected

in the case.

(8)After about 5 years, on the basis of anonymous letters

received by the brother of the deceased-Respondent No. 2

herein, wherein the death was described a planned murder,

FIR being No. 194 of 2005 dated 29.05.2005 was registered

against the appellants herein under Sections 304B and 498A

of the IPC. The FIR, in substance, recorded that the deceased

was meted out with cruelty at her matrimonial home on the

behest of appellants for the demand of dowry. On 20.09.1999,

the deceased informed Respondent No. 2 over phone regarding

the quarrel with the appellant No. 1 herein and she was found

dead on the very same date. During investigation, the police

at Durg found that she was actually subjected to cruelty in

connection with the demand of dowry by her in-laws. The

appellant No. 1 herein was arrested for the alleged involvement

in the offence. Being aggrieved by the filing of the FIR, the

8

Page 9 appellant No. 1 herein filed a writ petition before the High

Court which got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated

04.04.2007. A fresh petition under Section 482 of the Code

was also filed before the High Court wherein learned single

Judge of the High Court, vide order dated 17.10.2011

dismissed the petition filed by the appellants herein while

directing the police to complete the investigation speedily.

Further, a petition was filed by the appellants herein for

quashing of charge sheet and cognizance taken of the offence

dated 03.09.2011 and 13.10.2011 respectively in Crime No.

194 of 2005 registered at P.S. Bhilai Nagar, District Durg

which also got dismissed vide High Court’s order dated

27.09.2012.

9)Learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that

the earlier or the first information in regard to the commission

of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirement of Section 154

of the Code and there cannot be second FIR or fresh

investigation of any subsequent information in respect of the

same cognizable offence. Learned senior counsel further

stressed upon that when the police had conducted inquiry on

9

Page 10 the information and closed the case there is no point in

re-opening the case by filing FIR that too on the basis of

anonymous letters received by the brother of the deceased

after a lapse of 5 (five) years. In view of the above claim of

learned senior counsel for the appellants, it is imperative to

discuss the scope of ‘Inquiry’ under Section 174 of the Code in

order to ascertain as to whether the ‘information’ received

under Section 174 of the Code satisfies the requirement of

Section 154 of the Code.

Scope of ‘Inquiry’ under Section 174 of the Code:

10)The proceedings under Section 174 have a very limited

scope. The object of the proceedings is merely to ascertain

whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or

an unnatural death and if so what is the apparent cause of the

death. The question regarding the details as to how the

deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what

circumstances he was assaulted is foreign to the ambit and

scope of the proceedings under Section 174 of the Code.

Neither in practice nor in law was it necessary for the police to

mention those details in the inquest report. It is, therefore,

10

Page 11 not necessary to enter all the details of the overt acts in the

inquest report. The procedure under Section 174 is for the

purpose of discovering the cause of death, and the evidence

taken was very short. When the body cannot be found or has

been buried, there can be no investigation under Section 174.

This section is intended to apply to cases in which an inquest

is necessary. The proceedings under this Section should be

kept more distinct from the proceedings taken on the

complaint. Whereas the starting point of the powers of police

was changed from the power of the officer in charge of a police

station to investigate into a cognizable offence without the

order of a Magistrate, to the reduction of the first information

regarding commission of a cognizable offence, whether

received orally or in writing, into writing. As such, the

objective of such placement of provisions was clear which was

to ensure that the recording of the first information should be

the starting point of any investigation by the police. The

purpose of registering FIR is to set the machinery of criminal

investigation into motion, which culminates with filing of the

police report and only after registration of FIR, beginning of

11

Page 12 investigation in a case, collection of evidence during

investigation and formation of the final opinion is the

sequence which results in filing of a report under Section 173

of the Code. In George and Others vs. State of Kerala and

Another (1998) 4 SCC 605, it has been held that the

investigating officer is not obliged to investigate, at the stage of

inquest, or to ascertain as to who were the assailants. A

similar view has been taken in Suresh Rai and Others vs.

State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 84.

11)In this view of the matter, Sections 174 and 175 of the

Code afford a complete Code in itself for the purpose of

“Inquiries” in cases of accidental or suspicious deaths and are

entirely distinct from the “investigation” under Section 157 of

the Code wherein if an officer in-charge of a police station has

reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is

empowered to investigate, he shall proceed in person to the

spot to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case. In

the case on hand, an inquiry under Section 174 of the Code

was convened initially in order to ascertain whether the death

is natural or unnatural. Learned senior counsel for the

12

Page 13 appellants claims that the earlier information regarding

unnatural death amounted to FIR under Section 154 of the

Code which was investigated by the police and thereafter the

case was closed. On a careful scrutiny of materials on record,

the inquiry which was conducted for the purpose of

ascertaining whether the death is natural or unnatural cannot

be categorized under information relating to the commission of

a cognizable offence within the meaning and import of Section

154 of the Code. On information received by P.S. Mulana, the

police made an inquiry as contemplated under Section 174 of

the Code. After holding an inquiry, the police submitted its

report before the sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ambala stating

therein that it was a case of hanging and no cognizable offence

is found to have been committed. In the report, it was also

mentioned that the father of the deceased-R.P. Sharma (PW-1)

does not want to take any further action in the matter. In view

of the above discussion, it clearly goes to show that what was

undertaken by the police was an inquiry under Section 174 of

the Code which was limited to the extent of natural or

unnatural death and the case was closed. Whereas, the

13

Page 14 condition precedent for recording of FIR is that there must be

an information and that information must disclose a

cognizable offence and in the case on hand, it leaves no matter

of doubt that the intimation was an information of the nature

contemplated under Section 174 of the Code and it could not

be categorized as information disclosing a cognizable offence.

Also, there is no material to show that the police after

conducting investigation submitted a report under Section 173

of the Code as contemplated, before the competent authority,

which accepted the said report and closed the case.

12)In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the

investigation on an inquiry under Section 174 of the Code is

distinct from the investigation as contemplated under Section

154 of the Code relating to commission of a cognizable offence

and in the case on hand there was no FIR registered with the

P.S. Mulana neither any investigation nor any report under

Section 173 of the Code was submitted. Therefore, challenge

to impugned FIR under Crime No. 194 of 2005 registered by

P.S. Bhilai Nagar could not be assailed on the ground that it

14

Page 15 was second FIR in the garb of which investigation or fresh

investigation of the same incident was initiated.

Territorial Jurisdiction:

13)Learned senior counsel for the appellants vehemently

contended that the P.S. Bhilai Nagar, Durg had no territorial

jurisdiction to investigate the matter alleging commission of

offence under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC because

none of the part of the alleged offence was committed within

the territorial jurisdiction of P.S. Bhilai Nagar, Durg. It is true

that territorial jurisdiction also is prescribed under

sub-section (1) of Section 156 to the extent that the officer can

investigate any cognizable case which a court having

jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such police

station would have power to enquire into or try under the

provisions of Chapter XIII. However, sub-section (2) makes the

position clear by providing that no proceeding of a police

officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in

question on the ground that the case was one which such

officer was not empowered to investigate. After investigation is

completed, the result of such investigation is required to be

15

Page 16 submitted as provided under Sections 168, 169 and 170.

Section 170 specifically provides that if, upon an investigation,

it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that

there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion

to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such

officer shall forward the accused under custody to a

Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon

a police report and to try the accused or commit for trial.

Further, if the investigating officer arrives at the conclusion

that the crime was not committed within the territorial

jurisdiction of the police station, then FIR can be forwarded to

the police station having jurisdiction over the area in which

the crime is committed. But this would not mean that in a

case which requires investigation, the police officer can refuse

to record the FIR and/or investigate it. Chapter XIII of the

Code provides for “jurisdiction of the criminal courts in

inquiries and trials”. It is to be stated that under the said

Chapter there are various provisions which empower the court

for inquiry or trial of a criminal case and that there is no

absolute prohibition that the offence committed beyond the

16

Page 17 local territorial jurisdiction cannot be investigated, inquired or

tried. This would be clear by referring to Sections 177 to 188.

For our purpose, it would suffice to refer only to Sections 177

and 178 which are as under:

“177. Ordinary place of enquiry and trial.—Every offence

shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within

whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

178. Place of enquiry or trial.—(a) When it is uncertain in

which of several local areas an offence was committed, or

(b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area

and partly in another, or

(c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be

committed in more local areas than one, or

(d) where it consists of several acts done in different local

areas, it may be enquired into or tried by a Court having

jurisdiction over any of such local areas.”

A reading of the aforesaid sections would make it clear that

Section 177 provides for “ordinary” place of enquiry or trial.

Section 178, inter alia, provides for place of enquiry or trial

when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence

was committed or where the offence was committed partly in

one local area and partly in another and where it consisted of

several acts done in different local areas, it could be enquired

into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such

local areas. Hence, at the stage of investigation, it cannot be

17

Page 18 held that the SHO does not have territorial jurisdiction to

investigate the crime. But after the investigation is over, if the

officer arrives at the conclusion that the cause of action for

lodging the FIR has not arisen within his territorial

jurisdiction, then he will forward the case to the Magistrate

concerned empowered to take cognizance of the offence.

14)In the instant case, the question of territorial jurisdiction

was just one of the grounds for quashing the proceedings

along with the other grounds and, therefore, the High Court

should have examined whether the case was fit to be quashed

on other grounds or not. Nandini Sharma committed suicide

in her matrimonial home at Ambala. The information with

regard to the said incident was forwarded to the Police Station

Mulana, District Ambala. On 22.09.1999, post mortem on the

body was conducted and the case was closed by submitting a

final report before the SDM stating that there was no sign of

foul play in the occurrence. Since the appellant No. 1 was a

Flying Officer at the relevant time, a Court of Inquiry (CoI) was

also convened to investigate into the alleged role of the

appellant No. 1 herein which was finally closed on 25.07.2000.

18

Page 19 None of the family members of the deceased raised any doubt

on the death of Nandini or named anyone in the appellant’s

family especially when the father, brother and other relatives

of the deceased were present at Ambala during the period

when the investigation was carried on. On a correct

appreciation of record, we do not find even a whisper about

the cruelty meted out to her soon before her death. In fact, it

is on record that the appellant No. 1 visited Durg several times

after the death of Nandini and stayed with in-laws.

15)The territorial jurisdiction of a court with regard to a

criminal offence would be decided on the basis of the place of

occurrence of the incident. In the instant case, the suicide

was committed at Ambala. The Ambala police closed the case

after fulfilling the requirements of Section 174 of the Code

holding that there was no foul play in the incident and also

there was no requirement of lodging FIR under Section 154 as

none of the family members of the deceased raised any

suspicion over the death even though the death was

committed within seven years of marriage. Also, there is no

evidence of it being a continuing offence. Hence, the offence

19

Page 20 alleged cannot be said to have been committed wholly or partly

within the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate’s Court at Durg.

Prima facie, none of the ingredients constituting the offence

can be said to have occurred within the local jurisdiction of

that Court.

16)In the case on hand, as per the materials on record, in

Crime No. 194 of 2005, charge sheet has been filed and the

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg has taken cognizance of

the proceedings. In the present fact situation, we are of the

considered opinion that the Court at Durg has no territorial

jurisdiction to try the case and the proceedings are liable to be

quashed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction since

the entire cause of action for the alleged offence had

purportedly arisen in the city of Ambala.

Delay in lodging of FIR

17)In the case on hand, after 5 (five) years of the closing of

the above case under Section 174 of the Code, a fresh FIR

being No. 194 of 2005 was registered on the basis of

anonymous letters received by Respondent No. 2 herein –

brother of the deceased at Durg under Sections 304B, 498A

20

Page 21 and Section 34 of the Code stating that the death of Nandini

Sharma was a pre-planned murder. Even after the death of

Nandini, the relations between the appellant No. 1 herein and

his in-laws were cordial as can easily be seen from the

evidence on record. Appellant No. 1 herein met his in-laws

several times at Durg. Neither at the time of the death of

Nandini nor before receiving of anonymous letters by

Respondent No. 2 herein, was there any iota of doubt in the

minds of the respondents with regard to the appellants herein.

Even the father of the deceased never raised suspicion on the

conduct of his son-in-law and only after receiving of the above

said letters by Respondent No. 2, after a lapse of 5 (five) years,

he gave his deposition that his daughter was subjected to

cruelty for the demand of dowry on the hands of the

appellants herein.

18)Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment,

which is a creature of an afterthought. On account of delay,

the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity,

danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version

or exaggerated story. In our opinion, such extraordinary

21

Page 22 delay in lodging the FIR raises grave doubt about the

truthfulness of allegations made by Respondent No. 2 herein

against the appellants, which are, in any case, general in

nature. We have no doubt that by making such reckless and

vague allegations, Respondent No. 2 herein has tried to rope

the appellants in criminal proceedings. We are of the

confirmed opinion that continuation of the criminal

proceedings against the appellants pursuant to this FIR is an

abuse of the process of law. Therefore, in the interest of

justice, the FIR deserves to be quashed. In this context, it is

apt to quote the following decision of this Court in Jai

Prakash Singh vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2012) 4 SCC 379

wherein it was held as under:-

“12. The FIR in a criminal case is a vital and valuable piece

of evidence though may not be substantive piece of evidence.

The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR in

respect of the commission of an offence is to obtain early

information regarding the circumstances in which the crime

was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part

played by them as well as the names of the eye-witnesses

present at the scene of occurrence. If there is a delay in lodging

the FIR, it loses the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in

of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or

concocted story as a result of large number of

consultations/deliberations. Undoubtedly, the promptness in

lodging the FIR is an assurance regarding truth of the

informant’s version. A promptly lodged FIR reflects the firsthand

22

Page 23 account of what has actually happened, and who was

responsible for the offence in question.”

19)Whether an offence has been disclosed or not, must

necessarily depends on the facts and circumstances of each

case. If on consideration of the relevant materials, the Court is

satisfied that an offence is disclosed, it will normally not

interfere with the investigation into the offence and will

generally allow the investigation into the offence to be

completed in order to collect materials for proving the offence.

20) In the above backdrop, it is also imperative to discuss the

scope of inherent power of the High Court under Section 482

of the Code. The appellants before us filed a petition under

Section 482 of the Code for quashing of the FIR on the ground

that the FIR was filed after a delay of 5 (five) years and is

barred by territorial jurisdiction. The High Court, on the other

hand, after taking note of the fact that the investigation is in

the final stage in the matter and a charge sheet is ready to be

filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, ordered for its

continuance without taking into consideration that it is barred

23

Page 24 by law. The court at Durg did not take notice of the fact that

there is a legal bar engrafted in the matter for its continuance

and the proceedings have been maliciously instituted after a

delay of five years with an ulterior motive for wreaking

vengeance on the appellants. This point has been more

clarified in State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal

and Others (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein this Court also

stated that though it may not be possible to lay down any

precise, clearly defined, sufficiently channelised and inflexible

guidelines or rigid formulae or to give an exhaustive list of

myriad kinds of cases wherein power under Section 482 of the

Code for quashing of the FIR should be exercised, there are

circumstances where the Court may be justified in exercising

such jurisdiction. These are, where the FIR does not prima

facie constitute any offence, does not disclose a cognizable

offence justifying investigation by the police; where the

allegations 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; where there is an expressed legal bar

24

Page 25 engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code; and 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.

Despite stating these grounds, the Court unambiguously

uttered a note of caution to the effect that the power of

quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very

sparingly and with circumspection and that too, in the rarest

of rare cases; the Court also warned that the Court would not

be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability

or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR

or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent

powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to

act according to its whims or caprice. In para 102 of the

judgment, it was held as under:-

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various

relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the

principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of

decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power

under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of

the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we

give the following categories of cases by way of illustration

25

Page 26 wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse

of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of

justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise,

clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible

guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of

myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(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 concerned Act (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 the

concerned Act, 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.”

26

Page 27 21)While discussing the scope and ambit of Section 482 of

the Code, a similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of

this Court in Rajiv Thapar and Others vs. Madan Lal

Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 wherein it was held as under:-

“29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the

jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it

chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an

accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of

committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are

all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The

same parameters would naturally be available for later stages

as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482

CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have

far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the

prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the

prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a

determination must always be rendered with caution, care and

circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under

Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that

the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to

the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound,

reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is

such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in

the charges levelled against the accused; and the material

produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the

veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled

by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule

out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the

prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording

any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence

should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be

justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable

quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such

as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and

condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a

27

Page 28 situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would

persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to

quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse

of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice.

30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing

paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine

the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by

invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482

CrPC:

30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the

accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material

is of sterling and impeccable quality?

30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the

accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges

levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to

reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the

complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a

reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of

the accusations as false?

30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the

accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant;

and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted

by the prosecution/complainant?

30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would

result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve

the ends of justice?

30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the

judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to

quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in

it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides

doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time,

which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well

as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that

the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.”

Conclusion:

22)In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered

opinion that the allegations made in the FIR are inherently

improbable and the evidence collected in support of the same

28

Page 29 do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a

case against the appellants herein. Further, to invoke

inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High

Court must be fully satisfied that the material produced on

record is based on sound, justifiable and reasonable facts. In

the case on hand, malicious prosecution was instituted by the

brother of the deceased after a period of five years that too on

the basis of anonymous letters. There was no accusation

against the appellants before filing of the FIR. The allegations

are vague and do not warrant continuation of criminal

proceedings against the appellants. Also, the court at Durg

has no territorial jurisdiction because cause of action, if any,

has arisen in Ambala. The criminal proceeding is grossly

delayed and a result of belated afterthought. The High Court

failed to apply the test whether the uncontroverted allegations

as made prima facie, establish the offence. It is also for the

court to take into consideration any special features which

appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient

and in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to

continue. The High Court did not apply its mind judiciously

29

Page 30 and on an incorrect appreciation of record, ordered for

continuance of the investigation on a petition under Section

482 of the Code. This power must be exercised judiciously

and not capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or

capricious exercise of such power may lead to undesirable

results.

23)In view of the foregoing discussion, FIR No. 194 dated

29.05.2005 is hereby quashed and the criminal proceeding

against the appellants is dropped for want of prosecution.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed.

...…………….………………………J.

(MADAN B. LOKUR)

.…....…………………………………J.

(R.K. AGRAWAL)

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 23, 2016.

30