PETITIONER:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
L. MUNISWAMY & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT03/03/1977
BENCH:
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.
GOSWAMI, P.K.
SHINGAL, P.N.
CITATION:
1977 AIR 1489 1977 SCR (3) 113
1977 SCC (2) 699
ACT
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act II of 1974)--S.482
(s. 561 A of -1899 Code)--Inherent power of the High Court
to quash proceedings at the stage of framing of
charges--Explained.
HEADNOTE
The apellants are accused Nos. 10, 13, 14, 15 and 17 to 20
before the Sessions Court for trial under various offences,
viz., . 324, 326, and 307 read with s. 34 of the Penal
Code. While discharging accused Nos. 11, 12 and 16 u/s 227
of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973, on 8.8.1975, the
learned Sessions Judge observed that there was "some materi-
al to hold that the remaining accused have had something to
do with the incident which occurred on 6.12.1973 in I.T.I.
Colony, Banglore" and adjourned the case to September 1,
1975, "for framing specific charges as made out from the
material on record against the rest of the accused person .
Two revision petitions were filed against this order, one by
accussed Nos. 10, 13, 14 and 15 and the other by accused
Nos. 17 to 20. These petitions were allowed by the High
Court on the view that there was no sufficient ground for
proceeding against the petitioners before it. The High
Court accordingly quashed the the proceedings in regard to
them.
In appeal by Special Leave, the appellant State
contended: (1) The High Court ought not to have exercised
its power to quash the proceedings against the respondent
without giving to the Sessions Court, which was seized of
the case, an opportunity to consider whether there was
sufficient material on the record on which to frame charges
against the respondents. (ii) In any event the High Court
could not take upon itself the task of assessing or appreci-
ating the weight of material on the record in order to find
whether any charges could be legitimately framed against the
respondents.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: (1) The High Court was justified in holding
that for meeting the ends of justice the proceedings against
the respondents ought to be quashed. It would be a sheer
waste of public time and money to permit the proceedings to
continue against the respondent, when there is no material
on the record on which any tribunal could reasonably convict
them for any offence connected with the assault on the com-
plainant. This is one of these cases in which a charge of
conspiracy is hit upon for the mere reason that evidence of
direct involvement of the accused is lacking. [118 A, D-E]
(2) The saving of the High Court’s inherent powers,
both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve
a Salutary public purpose which is that a Court proceedings
ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of
harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled
object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the
material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and
the like would justify the High Court in quashing the pro-
ceeding in the interest of justice. [117 F-G]
(3) Considerations justifying the exercise of inherent
powers for securing the ends of justice vary from case to
case and a jurisdiction as wholesome as the one conferred by
s. 482 ought not to be encased within the strait-jacket of a
rigid formula. The three instances’ cited in the Judgment
in R.P. Kapoor Vs. The State of Punjab, [1960] 3 SCR 388, as
to when the High Court would be justified in exercising its
inherent jurisdiction are only illustrative and can in the
very nature of things not be regarded as exhaustive. [118
F-H, 119 A]
114
R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab [1960] 3 SCR 338 explained..
(4) It is wrong to say that at the stage of framing
charges the Court cannot apply its judicial mind to the
consideration whether or not there is any ground for presum-
ing the commission of the offence. [119 B]
(5) While considering whether there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against an accused. the court pos-
sesses a comparatively wider discretion in the exercise of
which it can determine the question whether the material on
the record. if unrebutted, is such on the basis of which a
conviction can be said reasonably to be possible. [119 B-E]
Vadilal Panchal v. D. D. Ghadigaonkar AIR 1960 SC
1113; Century Spinning & Manufacturing, Co. v. State of
Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC 545 applied.
(6) In the instant case the High Court is right in its
view that the materials on which the prosecution proposed to
rely against the respondents is wholly inadequate to
sustain the charge that they are in any manner connected
with the assault on the complainant. [119 E-F]
(7) The grievance that the High Court interfered with
the Sessions’ Court’s order prematurely is not justified.
The case was adjourned by the Sessions Judge not for
deciding whether any charge at all could be framed against
the remaining accused, but for the purpose of deciding as
to which charge or charges could appropriately be framed
on the basis of the material before him.
[116 G-H]
(8) The object of s. 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
Act 2 of 1974, is to enable the superior Court to examine
the correctness of the reasons for which the Sessions Judge
has held that there is not sufficient ground for proceed-
ing against the accused. [117 C-D]
(9) The High Court is entitled to go into the reasons
given by the Sessions Judge in support of his order and to
determine for itself whether the order is justified by the
facts and circumstances of the case. [117 D-E] .
(10) In the exercise of the wholesome power u/s 482 of
the Act 2 of 1974 (s. 561 of 1898 Code), the High Court is
entitled to quash a proceeding if 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. [117 E-F]
Observations:
The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law
though justice has got to be administered according to laws
made by the legislature. Without a proper realisation of the
object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the
inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the
State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate
the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction. [117
G-H]
JUDGMENT
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos.
345-346 of 1976.
(Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
dated 30-9-1975 of the Karnataka High Court in Crl. Peti-
tions Nos. 248 and 253 of 1975).
D. Mookherjee, and B.R.G.K. Achar, for the Appellant,
Frank Anthony, K.B. Rohtagi and M.N. Kashyap, for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHANDRACHUD, J. These two appeals by social leave arise
out of a judgment dated september 30, 1975 rendered by the
High Court
115
of Karnataka in Criminal Petitions Nos. 248 and 253 of 1975.
By the aforesaid judgment the High Court in the exercise of
its inherent powers has quashed proceedings initiated by the
State of Karnataka appellant herein, against the respond-
ents.
The incident out of which these proceedings arise took
place on December 6, 1973 in the Central Avenue of the
Indian Telephone Industries Colony, Bangalore. Thyagaraja
Iyer, accused No. 1, who was an employee of the Indian’
Telephone Industries Ltd. was dismissed from service on
September 20, 1973 on the allegation that he had assaulted a
Canteen supervisor. The complainant Ajit Dutt, Works
Manager of the Crossbar Division, attempted to serve the
dismissal order on him but he refused to accept it and
threatened the complainant that he, the complainant, was
primarily responsible for the dismissal and would have to
answer the consequences. It is alleged that the I.T.I.
Employees’ Union took up cudgels on his behalf and re-
solved to support his cause. The case of the prosecution is
that accused Nos. 1 and 8 to 20 conspired to commit the
murder of the complainant and that in pursuance of that
conspiracy accused Nos. 1, 8 and 10 hired accused Nos. 2, a
notorious criminal, to execute the object of the conspiracy.
Accused No. 2 in turn engaged the services of accused Nos. 3
to 7 and eventually on the morning of December 6, 1973
accused Nos. 1 to 6 are alleged to have assaulted the
complainant with knives, thereby committing offences under
ss. 324, 326 and 307 read with s. 34. of the Penal Code.
Accused No. 2 was charged separately under s. 307 or in the
alternative under s. 326, Penal Code.
By his order dated October 23, 1974 the learned Metro-
politan Magistrate, V Court, Bangalore directed all the 20
accused to take their trial before the Sessions Court for
offences under s. 324, 326 and 307 read with s. 34 of the
Penal Code.
At the commencement of the trial before the learned
First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, two
preliminary questions were raised, one by the prosecution
and the other by the, accused. It was contended by the
prosecution that the specification of particular sections in
the committal order did not preclude the Sessions Court from
framing a new charge under s. 120-B of the Penal Code. On
the other hand it was contended by the accused that there
was no sufficient ground for proceeding with the prosecu-
tion and therefore they ought to be discharged. The learned
Additional Sessions Judge accepted the contention of the
prosecution that he had the power to frame a charge under s.
120-B. The correctness of that view was not challenged
before us by Mr. Frank Anthony who appears on behalf of the
accused. That is as it ought to be because the power of the
Sessions Court to frame an appropriate charge is not tram-
melled by the specifications contained in the committal
order. The Sessions Court, being seized of the case, has
jurisdiction to frame appropriate charges as the facts may
justify or the circumstances may warrant. The contention of
the accused that they ought to be discharged was accepted by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge partly. lie held that
there was no case against accused Nos. 11, 12 and 16 and
that
116
they were therefore entitled to be discharged. By an order
dated August 8, 1975 the, learned Judge. discharged those
three. accused in the. exercise of his powers under s. 227
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. We are informed
that the correctness of that order is under challenge before
the High Court in a proceeding taken by the State of Karna-
taka. We are not concerned with that order in these ap-
peals. After discharging accused Nos. 11, 12 and 16 the
learned. Judge, turning to the case against the remaining
accused, observed that there was "some material to hold
that they have had something to do with the incident which
occurred on 6-12-1973 in the I.T.I. Colony Bangalore".
The learned Judge adjourned the case to September 1, 1975
"for framing specific charges as made out from the material
on record against the rest of the accused persons."
Two revision petitions were filed against this order,
one by accused Nos. 10, 13, 14 and 15 and the other by
accused Nos. 17 to 20. Those petitions were allowed by the
High’Court on the view that there was no sufficient ground
for proceeding against the petitioners before it. The High
Court accordingly quashed the proceedings in regard to. them
which has led to these appeals.
Mr. Mookerjee who. appears on behalf of the State of
Karnataka contends that the High Court ought not to have
exercised its; powers to quash the proceedings against the
respondents without giving to the Sessions Court, which was
seized of the case, an opportunity to consider whether there
was sufficient material on the record on which to frame
charges against the respondents. It is argued that the
Sessions Court had adjourned the case for a consideration of
that very question and it was not proper for the High Court
to withdraw the case, as it were, and to exercise its ex-
traordinary powers, thereby preventing the Trial Court from
examining the sufficiency of the material which it is the
primary duty and function of that Court to examine. There
is some apparent justification for this grievance because
the language in which the sessions Court couched its order
would seem to suggest that it had adjourned the case to
September 1, 1975 for consideration of the question as to.
whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding
against the respondents. But a careful reading of the
Sessions Courts judgment would reveal that while discharg-
ing accused Nos. 11, 12 and 16 it came, to the conclusion
that insofar as the other accused were. concerned there was
some material to hold that they were connected with the
incident. The case was, therefore, adjourned by the Court
for flaming specific charges against them. In other words,
the learned Judge adjourned the case not for deciding wheth-
er any charge at all could be framed against the remaining
accused but for the purpose of deciding as to which charge
or charges could appropriately be framed on the basis of the
material before him. The grievance therefore that the High
Court interfered with the sessions Court’s order prematurely
is not justified.
The second limb of Mr. Mookerjee’s argument is that in
any event the High Court could not take upon itself the task
of assessing or appreciating the weight of material on the
record in order to find whether any charges could be legiti-
mately framed against the respondents. So
117
long as there is some material on the record to connect the
accused with the crime, says. the learned counsel, the case
must go on and the High Court has no jurisdiction. to put a
precipitate or premature end to the proceedings on the
belief that the prosecution is not likely to succeed. This,
in our opinion, is too broad a proposition to accept.
-Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 2 of 1974,
provides that:
"If, upon consideration of the record of
the case and the documents submitted there-
with, and after hearing the submissions of
the accused and the prosecution in this be-
half, the Judge considers that there is not
sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused, he shall discharge the accused and
record his reasons for so doing."
This section is contained in Chapter XVIII called "Trial
Before a Court of Sessions". It is clear from the provi-
sion that the Sessions Court has the power to discharge an
accused if after perusing the record and hearing the
parties he comes to the conclusion, for reasons to be re-
corded, that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused. The object of the provision which
requires the Sessions Judge to record his reasons is to
enable the superior court to examine the correctness of the
reasons for which the Sessions Judge has held that there
is of is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. The High Court therefore is entitled to go into
the reasons given by the Sessions Judge in support of his
order and to determine for itself whether the order is
justified by the facts and circumstances of the case.
Section 482 of the New Code, which corresponds to s. 561-A
of the Code of 1898, provides that:
"Nothing in this Code shall be deemed
to limit or affect the inherent powers of the
High Court to make such orders as may be
necessary to give effect to any order under
this Code or to prevent abuse of the process
of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends
of justice."
In the, exercise of this. whole some power, the High Court
is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclu-
sion 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 saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in
civil and criminal matters, is designed to. achieve a salu-
tary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought
not to be permitted to degenerate into weapon of harassment
or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object
behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material
on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like
would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in
the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher
than the, ends of mere law though justice has got to be.
administered according to laws made by the, legislature.
The compelling necessity for making these observations is
that without a proper realisation of the object and pur-
pose of the provision which seeks to. save the inherent
powers of the High Court to do justice between the State
and its. subjects, it would be impossible. to appreciate
the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.
118
Let us then turn to the facts of the case to see, wheth-
er the High Court was justified in holding that the proceed-
ings against the respondents ought to be quashed in order to
prevent abuse of the process of the court and in order to
secure the ends of justice. We asked the State counsel time
and again to point out any data or material on the basis of
which a reasonable likelihood of the respondents being
convicted of any offence in connection with the attempted
murder of the complainant could be predicated. A few bits
here and a few bits there on which the prosecution proposes
to rely are woefully inadequate for connecting the respond-
ents with the crime, howsoever, skilfully one may attempt to
weave those bits into a presentable whole. There is no
material on the record on which any tribunal could reason-
ably convict the respondents for any offence connected with
the assault on the complainant. It is undisputed that the
respondents were nowhere near the scene of offence at the
time of the assault. What is alleged against them is, that
they had conspired to commit that assault. This, we think,
is one of those cases in which a charge of conspiracy is hit
upon for the mere reason that evidence of direct involvement
of the accused is lacking. we have been taken through the
statements recorded by the police during the course of
investigation and the other material. The worst that can be
said against the respondents on the basis thereof is that
they used to meet one another frequently after the dismissal
of accused No. 1 and prior to the commission of the assault
on the complainant. Why they met, what they said, and
whether they held any deliberations at all, are matters on
which no witness has said a word. In the circumstances, it
would be a sheer waste of public time and money to permit
the proceedings to continue against the respondents. The
High Court was therefore justified in holding that for
meeting the ends of justice the proceedings against the
respondents ought to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the State Government relies upon a
decision of this Court in R.P. Kapur v. The State of Punjab
(1) in which it was held that in the exercise of its inher-
ent jurisdiction under s. 561A of the Code of 1898, the High
Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evi-
dence in the case is reliable or not. That may be so. But
in the instant case the question is not whether any reli-
ance can be placed on the veracity of this or that particu-
lar witness. The fact of the matter is that there is no
material on the record on the basis of which any tribunal
could reasonably come to the conclusion that the respondents
are in any manner connected with, the incident leading to
the prosecution. Gajendragadkar, J., who spoke for the
Court in Kapur’s(1) case observes in his judgment that it
was not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any
inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of the High
Court’s inherent jurisdiction. The three instances cited in
the judgment as to when the High Court would be justified in
exercising its inherent jurisdiction are only illustrative
and can in the very nature of things not be regarded as
exhaustive. Considerations justifying the exercise of
inherent powers for securing the ends of justice naturally
vary from case to
(1) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 388
119
case and a jurisdiction as wholesome as the one conferred by
s. 482 ought not to be encased within the strait-jacket of a
rigid formula.
On the other hand, the decisions cited. by learned
counsel for the respondents in Vadilal Panchaly. D.D. Gha-
digaonkar(1) and Cen-tarS, Spinning & Manufacturing Co. v.
State of Maharashtra(2) show that it is wrong to say that at
the stage of flaming charges the court cannot apply. its
judicial mind to the consideration whether or not there is
any ground for presuming the commission of the offence by
the accused. As observed in the latter case, the order
framing a charge affects a person’s liberty substantially
and therefore it is the duty of the court to consider judi-
cially whether the material warrants the framing of the
charge. It cannot blindly accept the decision of the prose-
cution that the accused be. asked to face a trial. In
Vadilal Panchal’s case. (supra) section 203 of the old Code
was under consideration, which provided that the Magistrate
could dismiss a complaint if after considering certain
matters mentioned in the section there was in his judgment
no sufficient ground for proceeding with the case.. To art
extent section 227 of the new Code contains an analogous
power which is conferred on the Sessions Court. It was held
by this Court, while considering the true scope of s. 203 of
the old Code that the Magistrate. was not bound to accept
the result of an enquiry or investigation and that he must
apply his judicial mind to the material on which he had to
form his judgment. These decisions show that for’ the
purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against an accused the court possesses a
comparatively wider discretion in the exercise of which. it
can determine the question whether the material on the
record, if unrebutted, is such on the: basis of which a
conviction can-be said reasonably to be possible.
We are therefore in agreement with the view of the High
Court that the material on which. the prosecution
proposes.to rely against the respondents is wholly inade-
quate to. sustain the charge that they are in any manner
connected with the assault on the complainant. We would,
however, like to observe that nothing in our judgment or in
the .judgment of the High Court should be taken as detract-
ing from the case of the prosecution, to. which we have not
applied our mind, as against accused Nos. 1 to 9. The case
against those accused must take its due and lawful course.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
S.R. Appeals dismissed.
(1) A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1113.
(2) A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 545.
9--240SCI/77
120