Interference by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can only be where a clear case for such interference is made out.

Supreme Court of India
Iridium India Telecom Ltd vs Motorola Incorporated & Ors on 20 October, 2010
Author: S S Nijjar
Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy, Surinder Singh Nijjar
 REPORTABLE
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISIDCITION
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.688 OF 2005
IRIDIUM INDIA TELECOM LTD. ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
MOTOROLA INCORPORATED & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS
 JUDGMENT
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.
31. We have considered the submissions made by the learned senior counsel. A bare perusal of the
submissions would be sufficient to amply demonstrate that this cannot be said to be an `open and
shut' case for either of the parties. There is much to be said on both sides. The entire scenario
painted by both the sides is circumscribed by `ifs' and `buts'. A mere reading of the 1992 PPM
would not be sufficient to conclude that the entire information has been given to the prospective
investors. Similarly, merely because there may have been some gaps in the information provided in
the PPM would not be sufficient to conclude that the respondents have made deliberate
misrepresentations. In such circumstances, we have to examine whether it was appropriate for the
High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings at the
stage when the Magistrate had merely issued process against the respondents.
32. The contours within which the High Court would exercise its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding has been dilated upon, and well defined by this Court in a catena of judgments. We may
make a reference here only to a few representative cases. In the case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs.
Veeranna18 considering the limits within which the Magistrate is required to conduct an inquiry
Supra under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., this Court observed that the scope of such inquiry is (Para 4)
extremely limited - limited only to the ascertainment of the truth or falsehood of the allegations
made in the complaint- (i) on the materials placed by the complainant before the Court; (ii) for the
limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out;
and (iii) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all
adverting to any defence that the case may have. In fact it is well settled that in proceedings under
Section 202, the accused has got absolutely no locus standi and is not entitled to be heard on the
question whether the process should be issued against him or not. It has been further held (Para 5)
as follows:-
..........Once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion it is not for the High Court, or
even this Court, to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to
examine the case on merits with a view to find out whether or not the allegations in
the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the accused. These
considerations, in our opinion, are totally foreign to the scope and ambit of an
inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which culminates into
an order under Section 204 of the Code. Thus it may be safely held that in the
following cases an order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be
quashed or set aside:
(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in
support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the
complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the
accused;
Iridium India Telecom Ltd vs Motorola Incorporated & Ors on 20 October, 2010
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/18288042/ 11
(2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so
that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused; (3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is
capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly
irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such
as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like. The
aforesaid examples are of course purely illustrative and provide sufficient guidelines to indicate the
contingencies where the High Court can quash proceedings.
This Court in the case of Kurukshetra University Vs. State of Haryana19, again stated the principle
regarding the exercise of the inherent powers conferred by Section 482 Cr.P.C. Chandrachud J.
speaking for the Bench observed as follows:
It ought to be realised that inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction
on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. That statutory power has to be
exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases.
In Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi20 this Court reiterated the legal position
with regard to the limits of the power under Section 482, as stated in the case of Raj Kapoor [(1977)
4 SCC 451] supra and Others Vs. State21 wherein Krishna Iyer, J., observed as follows:-
Even so, a general principle pervades this branch of law when a specific provision is
made : easy resort to inherent power is not right except under compelling
circumstances. Not that there is absence of jurisdiction but that inherent power
should not invade areas set apart for specific power under the same Code.
This Court also reiterated the four propositions of law which were said to be illustrative in the case
of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna22. It was further held as follows:-
10. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that proceedings against an accused in the initial
stages can be quashed only if on the face of the complaint or the papers
accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. In other words, the test is that
taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting
anything, if no offence is made out then the High Court will be justified in quashing
the proceedings in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the present Code.
The aforesaid proposition of law was again reiterated by this Court in the case of Madhavrao
Jiwajirao Scindia and Others Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Others23in the following
words:-
The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked
to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the [(1980) 1 SCC
43] supra supra 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
Iridium India Telecom Ltd vs Motorola Incorporated & Ors on 20 October, 2010
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/18288042/ 12
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 where 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 though it may
be at a preliminary stage.
The aforesaid ratio of law was further elaborately discussed in the case of State of
Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal24, wherein this court had formulated certain principles
pertaining to the exercise of such power in the following words:-
102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the
Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a
series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted
and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay
down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even
if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Supra Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected
in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against
the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the
FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person
can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance
Iridium India Telecom Ltd vs Motorola Incorporated & Ors on 20 October, 2010
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/18288042/ 13
of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding
is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a
view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding
should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases;
that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness
or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or
inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or
caprice.
The aforesaid ratio of law was further reiterated in the case of Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary25 in
the following words:
132. The criminal courts are clothed with inherent power to make such orders as
may be necessary for the ends of justice. Such power though unrestricted and
undefined should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised
in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the
administration of which alone the courts exist. The powers possessed by the High
Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the
power requires great caution in its exercise. Courts must be careful to see that its
decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles.
134. This Court in Dr Raghubir Sharan Vs. State of Bihar had an occasion to examine
the extent of inherent power of the High Court and its jurisdiction when to be
exercised. Mudholkar, J. speaking for himself and Raghubar Dayal, J. after referring
to a series of decisions of the Privy Council and of the various High Courts held thus:
... [E]very High Court as the highest court exercising criminal jurisdiction in a State
has inherent power to make any order for the purpose of securing the ends of justice
.... Being an extraordinary power it will, however, not be pressed in aid except for
remedying a flagrant abuse by a subordinate court of its powers ....
137. This inherent power conferred by Section 482 of the Code 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 premature decision in a case wherein
the entire facts are extremely incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has
not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved whether
factual or legal are of great magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective
without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in
regard to the cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction
of quashing the proceedings at any stage......
Iridium India Telecom Ltd vs Motorola Incorporated & Ors on 20 October, 2010
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/18288042/ 14
[(1992) 4 SCC 305] Adverting to the scope of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482,
this Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi26 again reiterated as follows:-
It is evident from the above that this Court was considering the rare and exceptional
cases where the High Court may consider unimpeachable evidence while exercising
jurisdiction for quashing under Section 482 of the Code. In the present case,
however, the question involved is not about the exercise of jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Code where along with the petition the accused may file unimpeachable
evidence of sterling quality and on that basis seek quashing, but is about the right
claimed by the accused to produce material at the stage of framing of charge.
Again upon a very elaborate examination of the powers possessed by the High Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C., this Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and
Ors.27 very clearly observed that the aforesaid powers are very wide and the very plentitude of the
power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in
exercise of this power is based on sound principles. It is clearly observed that the High Courts have
been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public
purpose. A Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment
or persecution. At the [(2005) 1 SCC 568] [(2007) 12 SCC 1] same time, it is also observed that the
inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should
normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and
hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the
issues involved, whether factual or legal are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true
perspective without sufficient material. Reiterating the observations made by this Court in the case
of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Ors28, the Court again cautioned about a
growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. The Court
reiterated that any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal
offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged.
The limits within which the jurisdiction under Section 482 can be exercised was again precisely
stated in the case of Divine Retreat Centre Vs. State of Kerala29, as follows:
In our view, there is nothing like unlimited arbitrary jurisdiction conferred on the
High Court under Section 482 of the Code. The power has to be exercised sparingly,
carefully and with caution only where such exercise is justified by the tests laid down
in the section [(2006) 6 SCC 736] [(2008) 3 SCC 542] itself. It is well settled that
Section 482 does not confer any new power on the High Court but only saves the
inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. There
are three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised,
namely, (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.
In the case of M.N. Ojha and Others Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav and Another30, this Court was
dealing with a situation where the SDJM had issued process mechanically and without any
Iridium India Telecom Ltd vs Motorola Incorporated & Ors on 20 October, 2010
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/18288042/ 15
application of mind. Furthermore, the High Court had dismissed a petition for quashing the order of
SDJM by a cryptic and non- speaking order. In such circumstances, this Court observed :-
25. Had the learned SDJM applied his mind to the facts and circumstances and
sequence of events and as well as the documents filed by the complainant himself
along with the complaint, surely he would have dismissed the complaint. He would
have realised that the complaint was only a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the
Bank against the complainant and others with regard to the same transaction.
27. The case on hand is a classic illustration of non- application of mind by the
learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate did not scrutinise even the contents of
the complaint, leave aside the material documents available on record. The learned
Magistrate truly was a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary
evidence before summoning the appellants.
28. The High Court committed a manifest error in disposing of the petition filed by the appellants
under Section 482 of the Code without even adverting to the supra basic facts which were placed
before it for its consideration.
29. It is true that the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure cannot go into the truth or otherwise of the allegations and appreciate the evidence if any
available on record. Normally, the High Court would not intervene in the criminal proceedings at
the preliminary stage/when the investigation/enquiry is pending.
30. Interference by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure can only be where a clear case for such interference is made out. Frequent and
uncalled for interference even at the preliminary stage by the High Court may result in causing
obstruction in progress of the inquiry in a criminal case which may not be in the public interest. But
at the same time the High Court cannot refuse to exercise its jurisdiction if the interest of justice so
required where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no fair minded and informed observer can ever reach a just and
proper conclusion as to the existence of sufficient grounds for proceeding. In such cases refusal to
exercise the jurisdiction may equally result in injustice more particularly in cases where the
complainant sets the criminal law in motion with a view to exert pressure and harass the persons
arrayed as accused in the complaint.