Case title:
Preeti Gupta & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand
Date of Order:
13 August 2010
Bench:
Dalveer Bhandari, K.S. Radhakrishnan
Parties:
Appellants - Preeti Gupta & Anr
Respondents- State of Jharkhand
SUBJECT
The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is a procedural law governing criminal proceedings in India. It provides a framework for the investigation, inquiry, trial, and appeals of criminal cases. The CrPC was enacted in 1973 and replaced the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
The present case emphasizes Section 482 of the Code and its inherent powers. Inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 498-A
- Section 406
- Section 341
- Section 323
- Section 120-B
Dowry Prohibition Act
- Section 3
- Section 4
Code of Criminal Procedure
- Section 482
OVERVIEW
- The complainant Manisha was married to Kamal Poddar on 10.12.2006.
- The complainant (respondent no.2) filed a complaint against her husband and all his immediate relations before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi under sections 498-A, 406, 341, 323, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- This 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.
- Aggrieved by this summoning order, the appellants approached the Apex Court.
ISSUE RAISED
- 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?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The counsel for the appellants argued that there were no specific allegations made against appellants No.1 and No.2.
- It was pointed out by the counsels that the statements of prosecution witnesses PW1 to PW4 were recorded along with the statement of the complainant and none of the witnesses had anything to say against the appellants.
- The counsel firmly asserted that the appellants had never visited Ranchi and interfered with the complainant's personal matters.
- It was submitted before the court that this case was made without foundation and falsely implicated the appellants.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The Supreme Court of India quashed the complaint against the appellants and set aside the impugned High Court order.
- It was ruled that the complainant failed to visualize the implications and such a complaint has led to insurmountable harassment, agony, and pain to the complainant, the accused, and his close relations.
- The court considered it would be unfair and absurd if the appellants were compelled to undergo rigorous criminal trials.
- The court opined that in various instances the extent and range of the court's powers under section 482 Cr. P.C. has been established. The High Court possesses the inherent power to ensure fair and substantial justice dispensation, which is its primary and only purpose. This power may be exercised ex debito justitiae or to prevent misuse of the judicial system.
- Reliance was placed on the case R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866] to state certain instances of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings.
- The case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Others (1977) 2 SCC 699 was cited to hold that the High Court will be entitled to quash a proceeding using the power under Section 482 when it concludes 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.
CONCLUSION
The present judgment gave way to several judicious findings regarding Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court of India ruled that courts must ensure that the exercise of power is grounded on sound principles. A court's refusal to exercise its inherent power to promote justice can potentially result in serious injustice, just as using this power to suppress a lawful prosecution would. The bench consisting of Justice Dalveer Bhandari, and Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan laid down that it is wise for the High Court to avoid making a hasty decision based on incomplete and ambiguous facts, especially if the evidence has not been presented and the issues at hand are substantial. Moreover, having sufficient material is crucial to understand the factual and legal aspects accurately. Finally, it was noted that it is impossible to establish a hard and fast rule for cases where the High Court intervenes and quashes proceedings at any point using its extraordinary jurisdiction.
