SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before:- S.N. Variava and Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Appellant
Versus
GOLOCONDA LINGA SWAMY and another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1180 of 2003.
27.7.2004.
CrPC S. 482 – Quashing – Types of materials the High Court can assess to quash an FIR – Court drew a fine distinction between consideration of materials that were tendered as evidence and appreciation of such evidence – Only such material that manifestly fails to prove the accusation in the FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR.
Held,
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 power to prevent such abuse. 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 court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.
Held,
In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusation. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court 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 no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. 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.
Full Judgment with detailed headnotes for Online Subscribers (opens automatically) (Click to subscribe Trial Pack)
