Court’s failing to use the power for advancement of justice can also lead to grave injustice

Ravikiran Shukre | Manikchand Pahade Law College, Aurangabad | 20th January 2020 

Preeti Gupta and Anr. V. State of Jharkhand, (Criminal appeal no. 1512 of 2010) 

Facts of the Case: 

1. Appeal has been filed by Preeti Gupta the married sister-in-law and a permanent resident of Navasari, Surat, Gujarat with her husband and Gaurav Poddar, a permanent resident of Goregaon, Maharashtra, who is the unmarried brother-in-law of the complainant, Manisha Poddar, against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Jharkhand dated 27.4.2009 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos.304 of 2009. 
2. Complainant Manisha was married to Kamal Poddar at Kanpur on 10.12.2006. Immediately after the marriage, the complainant who is respondent no.2 in this appeal left for Mumbai along with her husband Kamal Poddar who was working with the Tata Consultancy Services and was permanently residing at Mumbai. She also joined Tata Consultency Servies at Mumbai. Respondent no. 2 visited Ranchi to participate in “Gangaur” festival, an important Hindu festival which is widely celebrated in Northern India. She returned after 2 weeks to Mumbai. 
3. On 08.07.2009, respondent no. 2 Manisha Poddar has filed a complaint to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi under sections 498-A, 406, 341, 323 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code read with sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against all immediate relations of husband namely, Pyarelal Poddar (father-in-law), Kamal Poddar (husband), Sushila Devi (mother-in-law), Gaurav Poddar (unmarried brother-in-law) and Preeti Gupta @ Preeti Agrawal (married sister-in-law). The complaint was transferred to the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. Statements of Respondent no.2 and other witnesses were recorded and on 10.10.2008 the Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and passed the summoning order of the appellants. The appellants are aggrieved by the said summoning order.
4. It was alleged in a criminal complaint that a luxury car was demanded by all the accused named in the complaint. It was also alleged that respondent no.2 was physically assaulted at Mumbai. According to the said allegations of the complainant, it appears that the alleged incidents had taken place either at Kanpur or Mumbai. According to the averments of the complaint, except for the demand of the luxury car no incident of harassment took place at Ranchi.
5. According to the appellants, there was no specific allegation against both the appellants in the complaint. Appellant no.1 had been permanently residing with her husband at Navasari, Surat (Gujarat) for the last more than seven years. She had never visited Mumbai during the year 2007 and never stayed with respondent no.2 or her husband. Similarly, appellant no.2, unmarried brother-in-law of the complainant has also been permanently residing at Goregaon, Maharashtra. According to them, there was no question of any interference because the appellants had been living in different cities for a number of years.
6. It was clearly alleged by the appellants that they had been falsely implicated in this case. The appellants also asserted that even if all the allegations incorporated in the complaint were taken to be true, even then no offence could be made out against them.

Judgment:

1. Appellants submitted before High Court that it ought to have quashed this complaint using inherent powers of High Court because there were no specific allegations against the appellants and they ought not have been summoned. 
2. The question before the Supreme Court was that, whether the High Court was justified in not exercising its inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the facts and circumstances of this case?
3. Supreme Court has observed that the powers possessed by the High Court under section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution but court’s failing to use the power for advancement of justice can also lead to grave injustice.
4. Supreme Court while discussing on this issue considered the case of  R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab^[1] as it summarised the categories of cases where inherent powers can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings: 
5. where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;
6. where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
7. where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
8. Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Others^[2] observed that the wholesome power under section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose.

After taking into consideration aforesaid cases, Supreme Court held that it would be unfair to compel the appellants to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to quash the complaint against the appellants.

^[1] AIR 1960 SC 866

^[2] (1977) 2 SCC 699