“Inherent power should not stifle legitimate prosecution”

Apex court caution to High Courts on quashing proceedings
It is for trial judge to find out whether evidence is valid or not
High Court should refrain from giving prima facie decision where facts are incomplete
New Delhi: The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (power to quash lower court proceedings), though wide, has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously. Only then will such exercise be justified, the Supreme Court has held.
“While exercising the powers under this section, the High Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has the power to prevent abuse,” said a Bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat, C.K. Thakker and L.S. Panta. “It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers, the court would be justified in quashing any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice.”
Writing the judgment, Justice Pasayat said the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. PC, “would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial judge. Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment.
“The court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time, the Section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death.”
The Bench said: “The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material.”
Dowry case
A dowry harassment case was initiated by Renu Kumari against her husband, in-laws and four others in a trial court in Bihar. On a petition from the respondents, the Patna High Court quashed the proceedings, holding that the case was maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spiting them out of a private and personal grudge.
On appeal by Ms. Renu Kumari, the apex court held that the High Court had wrongly exercised its inherent power. Setting aside the impugned judgment, it allowed the trial to proceed further.
The Hindu; Legal Correspondent
Friday, Mar 07, 2008