Leave granted.
This appeal by the State is directed against the order of the Patna High Court dated 5.3.1992, by which order the High Court has quashed the cognizance taken against the respondent under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code.
Shri Uddai Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, Dhanbad Police Station was on duty at the Police Station on 8.1.1992. At 5.15 P.M. two Constables brought a truck bearing Registration No. HRX-3125 along with its driver, Khalasi and two other persons and reported that they found the truck coming speedly and crossing the Railway gate and did not stop even though the vehicle was asked to stop. They, therefore, chased the vehicle and stopped the same after some time and found that the truck has been loaded with pieces of iron tracks which were the property of B.C.C.L. On their enquiry about the documents, a copy of challan was shown but suspecting something wrong they brought the truck with the persons to the Police Station. The Sub-Inspector then found on checking that most of the iron loaded on the truck were the pieces of the track trolly used in B.C.C.L. On suspicion the Sub-Inspector asked the driver who told that the truck has been loaded from the factory of Rajendra Agarwalla, the respondent in this appeal and one Surendra Agarwal, proprietor of Associate Iron and Steel Company at Saraidhela has purchased the same. But they could not produce any document. He therefore submitted a report to the Inspector-cum-Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station alleging that the accused persons are guilty of offence under Section 414 of I.P.C. and the said report was treated as First Information Report. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the respondent and five other persons on 21.1.1992. In G.R. Case No. 107 of 1992, the learned Magistrate on perusal of the papers submitted by the police and all other relevant materials took conizance of the offence in question on 1.2.1992. The respondent thereafter filed application in the Patna High Court at Ranchi Bench invoking the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing the order of cognizance taken and the said application was registered as Criminal Case No. 475 of 1992. The learned Judge by the impugned order having quashed the cognizance taken by the Magistrate so far as respondent is concerned, the State has approached this Court.
Mr. B.B. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State contended that the State contended that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by trying to appreciate the evidence on record and thereafter recording the finding that no prima facie case has been made out. Mr. Singh further contended that notwithstanding the well recognised principle enunciated by this Court that the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised very sparingly and cautiously and only when the court comes to the conclusion that there has been an abuse of the process of the court, but in the case in hand the learned Judge examined the legality of the order of cognizance as a court of appeal and as such the order of the High Court is unsustainable in law. Mr. U.R. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand contended that the High Court having examined the material and having come to the conclusion that the materials on record do not make out an offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, the court was fully justified in quashing the order of cognizance and the same order should not be interfered by this Court.
It has been held by this Court in several cases that the inherent power of the court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be very sparingly and cautiously used only when the court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the court, if such power is not exercised. So far as the order of cognizance by a Magistrate is concerned, the inherent power can be exercised when the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint together with the other materials collected during investigation taken at their face value, do not constitute the offence alleged. At that stage it is not open for the court either to shift the evidence or appreciate the evidence and come to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out. In a recent Judgment of this Court to which one of us (Hon. K. Ramaswamy, J.) was a member it has been held, following the earlier decision in Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & anr. (JT 1995 (7) SC 299) :
’It is thus settled law that the
exercise of inherent power of the High
Court is an exceptional one. Great care
should be taken by the High court before
embarking to scrutinize the
FIR/chargesheet/complaint. In deciding
whether the case is rarest of rare cases
to scuttle the prosecution in its
inception, it first has to get into the
grip of the matter whether the
allegations constitute the offence. It
must be remembered that FIR is only an
imitation to move the machinery and to
investigate into cognizable offence.
After the investigation is concluded and
the charge-sheet is laid the prosecution
produces the statements of the witnesses
recorded under Section 161 of the Code
in support of the charge-sheet. At that
stage it is not the function of the
Court to weigh the pros and cons of the
prosecution case or to consider
necessity of strict compliance of the
provisions which are considered
mandatory and its effect of non-
compliance. It would be done after the
trial is concluded. The Court has to
prima facie consider from the averments
in the charge-sheet and the statements
of witnesses on the record in support
thereof whether court could take
cognizance of the offence, on that
evidence and proceed further with the
trial. If it reaches a conclusion that
no cognizable offence is made out no
further act could be done except to
quash the charge sheet. But only in
exceptional cases, i.e. in rarest of
rare cases of mala fide initiation of
the proceedings to wreak private
vengeance process of criminal is availed
of in laying a complaint or FIR itself
does not disclose at all any cognizable
offence - the court may embark upon the
consideration thereof and exercise the
power.
When the remedy under Section 482
is available, the High Court would be
loath and circumspect to exercise its
extraordinary power under Article 226
since efficacious remedy under Section
482 of the Code is available. When the
Court exercises its inherent power under
Section 482 the prime consideration
should only be whether the exercise of
the power would advance the cause of
justice or it would be an abuse of the
process of the court. When investigation
officer spends considerable time to
collect the evidence and places the
charge-sheet before the Court, further
action should not be short-circuited by
resorting to exercise inherent power to
quash the charge-sheet. The social
stability and order requires to be
regulated by proceeding against the
offender as it is an offence against the
society as a whole. This cardinal
principle should always be kept in mind
before embarking upon exercising
inherent power.’
Bearing in mind the aforesaid parameters if the charge sheet and the F.I.R. filed in the case in hand are examined and the impugned order of the High court is tested, the conclusion becomes irresistible that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by trying to appreciate the evidence and coming to a conclusion that no offence is made out. On examining the material on record and the impugned judgment of the High Court we are of the considered opinion that the High Court was wholly unjustified in invoking its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken in as much as the allegation in the F.I.R. and material referred to in the charge sheet do make out an offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, so far as the respondent is concerned. In the aforesaid premise the impugned order of the High Court dated 5.3.1992 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 475 of 1992 is quashed and this appeal is allowed. The Magistrate is directed to proceed with the trial against the respondent. The respondent may now appear before the Magistrate forthwith.