1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. By this petition under section 482 CrPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to challenge the criminal proceedings instituted against him for alleged offences punishable under sections 120B, 420, 427, 468, 323, 395, 426 IPC, pending in the Court of the Magistrate. 1st Class, Nongpoh. By order dated 14.3,96 passed by this Court further proceedings before the trial Court in CR (Misc) Case No. 1 of 1994 was stayed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invoked section 482 CrPC for quashing the proceeding. Although there is no dearth of case law on the point, but before referring the same, let us have a look on the language of the section.
"Saving of inherent powers of High Court. 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."
Reading the section it appears that the language of the section is plain enough and admits of no room for any ambiguity. The object of section 482 CrPC is three 6 fold, they are The inherent power by the High Court (i) is not to be resorted to if there is specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure; (ii) should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of the Court or otherwise secure the ends of justice; and (iii) should not be exercised as against the express bar of law and engrafted in any other provision of Criminal Procedure Code.
4. Going through the petition, the grounds raised therein and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no case for invoking the inherent power is made out. At the initial most stage, the Court is not required to take a meticulous microscopic view of the matter. Going by the allegations as made in the complaint and the statement made by the complainant the prima facie satisfaction drawn by the Court cannot be said to be baseless. The law on the point is well settled. The Supreme Court in AR Antulay vs. Ramdas Srinivas Nayak, AIR 1984 SC 718 has explained :
"Where it is said that Court issues process, it means the Court has taken cognizance of the offence and visible manifestation of taking cognizance, process is issued which means that the accused is called upon to appear before the Court. This may either lake the form or a summon of a warrant, as the case may be.''''
5. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, AIR 1988 SC 709, the Supreme Court held :
"When the Court is called upon to exercise this jurisdiction to quash a proceeding at the stage of the Magistrate taking congnizance of an offence, the High Court is guided by the allegations made in the complaint, whether those charge sheet do not in law constitute or spell out any offence and whether resort to criminal proceedings would, in the circumstances, amount to an abuse of the process of the Court or not ? When the prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and whether in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even through it may be at a preliminary stage."
6. More recently the Supreme Court in CBI vs. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd, AIR 1996 SC 2452, has held :
"For the purpose of quashing the complaint, it is necessary to consider whether the allegation in the complaint prima facie make out an offence or not. It is not necessary to scrutinise the allegations for the purpose of deciding whether such allegations are likely to be upheld in the trial. Any action by way of quashing the complaint is an action to be taken at the threshold before evidences are led in support of the complaint. For quashing the complaint by way of action at the threshold, it is, therefore, necessary to consider whether on the face of the allegations, a criminal offence is constituted or not."
In State of UP vs. OP Sharma, (1996) 7 SCC 705, the Supreme Court has again exercised a caution that the High Court should be loath to interfere at the threshold to thwart the prosecution exercising its inherent power under section 482 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
7. Since the petitioner has moved the petition under section 482 CrPC and also under Article 227 of the Constitution, it is necessary to deal with Article 227 of the Constitution. What is the scope of interference by the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution ? The Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustaquim, AIR 1984 SC 38, pointed out
"In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior Court or Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision.
The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 is limited to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority, and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. A mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract jurisdiction under this. Article."
The same view has been expressed in Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani vs. Pratapsing Mohansing Pardeshi, (1995) 6 SCC 576 :
"The High Court under Article 227 cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice, where grave injustice will be done unless the High Court interferes."
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is ill conceived and liable to be dismissed, it is accordingly dismissed. The stay order passed on 14.3.96 stands automatically vacated. The trial Court is directed to proceed expeditiously in accordance with law.
