ASMATHUNNISAversusSTATE OF A.P. REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD & ANOTHER

                           [2011] 3 S.C.R. 1116


    A                        ASMATHUNNISA
                                     v.
           STATE OF A.P. REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
         PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD &
                             ANOTHER
·   B            (Criminal Appeal No. 766 of 2011)

                             MARCH 29, 2011
          [DALVEER BHANDARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.]

    C      Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
      of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - s. 3(1)(x) - Punishment for offences
      of atrocities against a member of SC/ST - Appellant's
      husband speaking offending words by naming caste against
      the complainant in presence of his wife, when the complainant
    D himself was not present - Incident took place at the residence
      of complainant - Prosecution of the appellant and her
      husband uls. 3 (1)(x) - Petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. by the
      appellant - Dismissed by the High Court - On appeal held:·
      For offence u/s. 3(1 )(x), the public must view the person being
    E insulted for which he must be present which is not the case
      herein - Even if all the facts mentioned in the complaint are
      accepted as correct in its entirety, the complaint does not
      disclose the essential ingredients of an offence - Thus, the
      High Court should ensure that such frivolous prosecutions are
    F quashed under its inherent powers uls. 482 Cr.P. C. - Order
      of the High Court set aside - Complaint qua appellant .
      quashed - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482.
           Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Scope and
        ambit of - Explained.
    G
          According to the prosecution, husband of 'S', filed
      complaint alleging that the husband of the appellant
      spoke offending words against him in presence of his
      wife, using filthy language by naming caste and others
    H                            1116
       ASMATHUNNISA v. STATE OF AP. & ANR.               1117


 words while he was himself not present. The incident            A
 allegedly took place at the residence of the complainant.
 The appellant and her husband were prosecuted for an
 offence under Section 3(1 )(x) of the Scheduled Castes
 and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
 1989. The appellant filed a petition before the High Court      B
 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
 quashing the procf:edings, and the same was dismissed.
 Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appi;!al.

        The appellant contended that no offence under
   Section 3(1)(x) of the 1989 Act, could be made out against C
   the appellant because the ingredients of the offence are
   not made out; that in the complaint so called offending
   words were not even attributed to the appellant; that the
   appellant merely accompanied her husband and:the
   offending words were spoken by the husband of ~he. D
   appellant; that the husband of 'S' was not present when ·
   the offending words, if any, were spoken by the husband '
   of the appellant and in absence of real aggrieved person
   present at that point of time, no offence under the said
   Section can be made out against the appellant; that the E
   entire incident allegedly took place at the residence of 'S'
   and not in any place within public view; and that even if ·
   the contents of the complaint in its entirety are taken as
   correct and true even then no offence is made out
.. against the appellant.                                       F

      Allowing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1. The words used in Section 3 (1) (x) of the
 :~heduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
 of "'~rocities) Act, 1989 are 'in any place but within public   G
 view',\'. •-:ch means that the public must view the person
 being insulted for which he must be present and no
 offence on the allegations under the said Section gets
 attracted if the person is not present. [Para 10) [1124-F-
 G]                                                              H
     1118    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 3 S.C.R.

 A      2.1. Inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
   though wide, have to be exercised sparingly, carefully
   and with great caution and only when such exercise is
   justified by the tests specifically laid down In this Section
   itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement
 B of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice
   is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would
   be justified In preventing injustice by invoking Inherent
   powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute.
   [Para 13) [1125-F-G]                     ·
 c      2.2. If all the facts mentioned in the complaint are
   accepted as correct in its entirety and even then the
   complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of
   an offence, in such a case the High Court should ens ......
   that such frivolous prosecutions are quashed u ... :er its
 D inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. [Para
   27] [1132-G-H; 1133-A]

         M. Mohan v. The State 2011 (3) SCALE 78 - relied on.

 E     2.3. In the instant case, the High Court ought to have
   exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code
   of Criminal Procedure and quashed the complaint qua
   the appellant only to prevent abuse of the process of law.
   The impugned judgment passed by the High Court is set
 F aside and complaint qua the appellant, is quashed. [Paras
   28 and 29] [1133-B-C]

          E. Krishnan Nayanar v. Dr. M.A. Kuttappan and Ors.1997
     Crl. L.J. 2036; Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh
     and Ors. (2008) 12 sec 531; R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab
   G AIR 1960 SC 866; Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa
"'   Konjalgi and Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 736; State of Kamataka v.
     L. Muniswamy and Ors. (1977) 2 SCC 699; Janta Dal v. H.$.
     Chowdhary and Ors. (1992) 4 SCC 305; Dr Raghubir Sharan
     v. State of Bihar (1964) 2 SCR 336; State of Haryana and
   H
     ASMATHUNNISA v. STATE OF AP. & ANR.           1119

Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (1992) Suppl.1 SCC 335; Zandu A
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque .
and Anr. (2005) 1 SCC 122; lnder Mohan Goswami v. State
of Uttaranchal (2007) 12 SCC 1; Devendra and Others v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2009) 7 SCC 495; State of
A.P. v. Gourishetty Mahesh and Ors. (2010) 11 SCC 226 - B
                                                          .
referred to.

    Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecutions 1964 AC
1254 - referred          to.
                 Case Law Reference:                          c
    1997 Crl. L.J. 2036      Referred to.      Para 9
    (2ooa) 12 sec 531        Referred to.      Para 12
    AIR 1960 SC 866          Referred to.      Para 14        D
    (1976) 3 sec 736         Referred to.      Para 15
    (1977) 2 sec 699         Referred to.      Para 16
    (1992) 4. sec 305        Referred to.      Para 17
       I•                                                     E
    (1964) 2 SCR 336         Referred to.      Para 18
    1964 AC 1254             Referred to.      Para 20
    (1992) supp 1 sec        Referred to.      Para 21
    (2005) 1 sec 122         Referred to.      Para 23        F

    (2001) 12 sec 1          Referred to.      Para 24
    (2009) 1 sec 495         Referred to.      Para 25
    (201 O) 11 sec 226       Referred to.      Para 26        G
    20 ; 1 (3) SCALE 78      Relied on.        Para 27

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 766 of 2011.
                                                              H
     1120    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011) 3 S.C.R.


A          From the Judgment & Order dated 14.8.2006 of the High
     Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal
     Petition No. 2127 of 2006.
       Swarupa Reddy (for Balbir Singh Gupta), Ambar
  Qamaruddin, D. Mahesh Babu, A. Ramesh, C.K. Sucharita for
8
  the appearing parties.

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. Leave granted.
c         2. The appellant is the Headmistress in the Little Star
     School located at Gayatri Hills, Yousufguda, Hydera'1::id has
     preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and orrlt:!r
     passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradr:sh at
     Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No.2127 of 2006.
0
       3. It may be pertinent to mention that her husband Mohd.
  Samiuddin and the appellant are being prosecuted for an
  offence under section 3(1 )(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the
  Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short
E 'the 1989 Act').
      4. The appellant filed a petition before the Andhra Pradesh
  High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal
  Procedure for quashing the proceedings in Crime No.SO of
F 2006, Police Station Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. The High Court,
  by the impugned judgment, has declined to quash the
  proceedings.
          5. The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this
    .,appeal are recapitulated as under:
G
         A complaint was filed against the appellant and her
     husband Mohd. Samiuddin on 09.02.2006 before the Sub-
     Inspector of Police, Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad,
     which reads as under:                                 .
H
      ASMATHUNNISA v. STATE OF A.P. & ANR.                  1121
            [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

     "I am to inform you that just besides my house a building       A
     bearing No.8-2-293/82/8/60, in 1+3 storled building, a
     school is being run from 1 to 10th class. I have informed
     the management of the school with regard to sound
     pollution. I have also submitted representation to the DEO,
     Hyderabad. Since the .authorities have not taken any            B
     action in this regard, I approached the Hon'ble High Court
     of A.P., and obtained an interim order on 03.10.1995.
     While the DEO trying to implement the interim orders, the
     Little Star School management, Gayathri Hills, has created
     more sound pollution. When we were not able to stay at          c
     our houses due to sound pollution, we invited the press
     people and expressed our grievances on 08.02.2006. The
     same news was published in the Newspapers on
     09.02.2006. After reading the news, the School
     management, Smt. Asmatunnisa and her husband namely             0
     Md. Samiuddin came to my house at 9.00 a.m., when I was
          •
     not there. Md. Samiuddin abused in filthy language by
     naming caste and asked my wife, R. Sridevi, without even
     looking that she is a lady, that where did she sent me and
     also said that "AA LAMBADODU", "let him come home
     today we will settle the matter with him." Smt. Asmatunnisa     E
     also abused my wife. Smt. Anuradha, who is staying
     opposite to my house was the eye witness for the incident."

The significant part of this complaint is that the offending words
were admittedly spoken by Mohd. Samiuddin, the husband of            F
the appellant. He abused Sridevi's husband in filthy language
by naming caste and said that "AA LAMBADODU", "let him
come home today we will settle the matter with him." At. that
time, admittedly Sridevi's husband was not present.
                                                                     G
     6. The appellant has also been implicated because she
had accompanied her husband to the house of the complainant.
Admittedly, the appellant did not utter offending words. It would
be relevant to set out relevant provisions of law as under:
                                                                     H
    1122    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2011] 3 S.C.R.

A        7. Section 3 sub-section (1) sub-section (x) of the 1989
    Act is reproduced as under:
        "3. Punishments for offences of atrocities. - (1) Whoever,
        not being a member of a Scheuled Caste or a Scheduled
8       Tribe,-

        xxx xxx                       xxx
        intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a
        member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in
c       any place within public view;"
        8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that:

        A. According to the complaint, no offence under the
        aforesaid section can be made out against the appellant
D       because the ingredients of the offence are not made out.
        In the complaint so called offending words were not even
        attributed to the appellant. It is alleged that the appellant
        merely accompanied her husband and the offending words
        were spoken by the husband of the appellant, therefore,
E       the appellant in this appeal by no stretch of imagine1tion
        can be held guilty of the offence under the section 3(ff(x)
        of the 1989 Act.
        B. According to the section, any word which intentionally
F       insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of
        a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe is an offence·
        under the 1989 Act. In the instant case, the husband oft
        Sridevi was not present when the offending words, if any,
        were spoken by the husband of the appellant. In absence
        of real aggrieved person present at that point of time, nc
G
        offence under the said section can be made out agains
        the appellant.
        C. It is not established that the words were spoken by ai
       1person who was not a member of Scheduled Caste O·
H       Scheduled Tribe.
      ASMATHUNNISA v. STATE OF A.P. & ANR.                  1123
            [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
    D. The entire incident is alleged to have taken place at the    A
    residence of Sridevi and not in any place within public view.
    E. None of the ingredients of this offence are present in
    the instant case. Even if the contents of the complaint in
    its entirety are taken as correct and true even then no
                                                                    8
    offence is made: out against the appellant.

     9.ln this connection, learned counsel for the appellant has
placed reliance on a judgment Qf the Kerala High Court in E.
Krishnan Nayanar v. Dr. M.A. Kuttappan & Others 1997 Crl.
L.J. 2036. The relevant paragraphs of this judgment are paras       C
12, 13 and 18. The said paragraphs read as under:

    "12. A reading of Section 3 shows that two kinds of insults
    against the member of Scheduled Castes or Sched.uled
    Tribes are made punishable - one as defined under sub- 0
    section (ii) and the other as defined under sub-section (x)
    of the said section. A combined reading of the two sub-
    sections shows that under section (ii) insult can be caused
    to a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes
    by dumping excreta, waste matter, carcasses or any other E
    obnoxious substance in his premises or neighbourhood,
    and to cause such insult, the dumping of excreta etc, need
    not necessarily be done in the presence of the person
    insulted and whereas under sub-section (x) insult can be
    caused to the person insulted only if he is present in view .
    of the expression "in any place within public view". The F
    words "within public view", in my opinion, are referable only
    to the person insulted and not to the person who insulted
    him as the said expressionis conspicuously absent in sub-
    section (ii) of Section 3 of Act 3/1989. By avoiding to use
    the expression "within public view" in sub-section (ii), the G
    Legislature, I feel, has created two different kinds of
    offences an insult caused to a member of the Scheduled
    Castes or Scheduled Tribes, even in his absence, by
    dumping excreta etc. in his premises or neighbourhood
    and an insult by words caused to a member of the .H
         1124       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011) 3 S.C.R.

              Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes "within public view"
              which means at the time of the alleged insult the person
              insulted must be present as the expression "within public
              view" indicates or otherwise the Legislature would have
              avoided the use of the said expression which it avoided
     B        in sub-section (ii) or would have used the expression "in
              any public place".

              13. Insult contemplated under sub-section (ii) is different
              from the insult contemplated under sub-section (x) as in the
              former a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled
     c        Tribes gets insulted by the physical act and whereas is the
              latter he gets insulted in public view by the words uttered
              by the wrongdoer for which he must be present at the
              place.

     D        xxx    xxx                    xxx
              18. As stated by me earlier the words used in sub-section
              (x) are not "in public place", but "within publip view" which
''            means the public must view the person being insulted for
              which he must be present and no offence on the allegations
     E
              under the said section gets attracted. In my view, the entire
              allegations contained in the complaint even if taken to be
              true do not make out any offence against the petitioner''.


     F        10. The aforesaid paragraphs clearly mean that the words
         used are "in any place but within public view'', which means that
         the public must view the person being insulted for which he must
         be present and no offence on the allegations under the said
         section gets attracted if the person is not present.
     G
              ·11. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that,
         in any event, the words were not attributed to the appellant. She
         merely accompanied her husband to that place even according
         to the allegation in the cv:1plaint and she did not utter offending
     H
      ASMATHUNNISA v. STATE OF A.P. & ANR.                  1125
            [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.].

words. According to appellant, in the facts and circumstances       A
of this case, Section 3(1 )(x) of the 1989 Act is not attracted.

     12. Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn our
attention to a judgment of this Court Gorige Pentaiah v. State
of Andhra Pradesh & Others (2008) 12 SCC 531. The relevant          B
paragraph of this judgment ie as under:

    "6 ... According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x)
    of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the
    appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled
    Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (Respondent 3) was C
    intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with
    intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire
    complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the appellant"
    accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a
    Scheduled Tribe and he intention· ·:y insulted or intimidated D
    with intent to humiliate R~spondent 3. in a place within-
    public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are
    missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint
    to continue and to compel the appellant to face the
    rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified E ·
    leading to abuse of process of iaw.

       13. This Court, in a number of cases, has laid down the
scope and ambit of the High Court's power under section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Inherent power under
section 482 c·r.P.C. though wide have to be exercised               F
sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such
exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this
section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement
of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is
brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be         G
justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in
absence of specific provisions in the Statute.

    14. The law has been crystallized more than half a century
ago in the case of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960           H
    1126          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011) 3 S.C.R.

A SC 866 wherein this Court has summarized some categories
  of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised
  to quash the proceedings. This Court summarized the following
  three broad categories where the High Court would be justified
  in exercise of its powers under section 482:
8
        (i)   where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar
              against the institution or continuance of the
              proceedings;

           (ii)     where the allegations in the first information report
c                   or complaint taken at their face value and accepted
                    in their entirety do not constitute the offence
                    alleged;

           (iii)    where the allegations constitute an offence but
D                   there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence
                    adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the
                    charge."

       15. In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa
  Konjalgi and Others (1976) 3 sec 736, according to the court,
E the 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
F               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;
G          (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;
H
      ASMATHUNNISA v. STATE OF A.P. & ANR.                  1127
            [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

      (3)   where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in      A
            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       B
            defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of
            a complaint by legally competent authority and the
            like".

      16. This court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy &
 Others (1977) 2 SCC 699, observed that the wholesome                C
power under section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to
quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that
allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the
process of the court or that the ends of justice requires that the
proceedings ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been           o
invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters,
to achieve a salutary public purpose. A Cou.rt proceeding ought
not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment
or persecution. In this case, the court observed that end$ of
justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justiQe must     E
be administered according to laws made by the Legislature.
This case has been followed in a large number of subsequent
cases of this court and other courts.

   17. In Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Others (1992) 4
sec 305 the court observed as under:                                 F

          "131. Section 482 which corresponds to Section
    561-A of the old Code and to Section 151 of the Civil
    Procedure Code proceeds on the same principle and
    deals with the inherent power of the High Court. The rule        G
    of inherent powers has its source in the maxim "Quadolex
    aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo
    ipsa, ess uon potesf' which means that when the law gives
    anything to anyone, it gives also all those things without
    which the thing itself could not exist.                          H
    1128    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 3 S.C.R.


A             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,
B       ex debito justitiae to do real and substant!al 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
c       based on sound principles.•

         18. In Dr Raghubir Sharan v. State of Bihar (1964) 2 SCR
    336, this court observed as under "
o       "... Every 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
E       a subordinate court of its povJers ... ."

        19. In the said case, the court also observed that the
  inherent powers can be exercised under this section by the High
  Court (1) to give effect to any order passed under the Code;
  (2) to prevent abuse of the process of the court; (3) otherwise
F to secure the ends of justice.
        20. In Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecutions 1964
  AC ·1254, Lord Ried at page 1296 expressed his view "there
  must always be a residual discretion to prevent anything which
G savciurs of abuse ofprocess" with which view all the members
  of the House of Lords agreed but differed as to whether this
  entitled a Court to stay a lawful prosecution.
      21. In State of Haryana & Others v. BhajanLal & Others
H reported in (1992) Suppl.1 sec p.335, this court had an
      ASMATHUNNISA v. STATE OF A.P. & ANR.                  1129
            [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

occasion to examine the scope of the inherent power of the High     A
Court in interfering with the investigation of an offence by the
police and laid down the following rule: [SCC pp. 364-65, para
60: SCC (Cri) p. 456, para 60].
                                                                    l'i'.1
    "The sum and substance of the above deliberation results B
    in a conclusion that the investigation of an offence is the
    field exclusively reserved for the police officers whose
    powers in that field are unfettered so long as the power to
    investigate into the cognizable offences is legitimately
    exercised in strict compliance with the provisions falling C
    under Chapter XII of the Code and the courts are not
    justified in obliterating the track of investigation when the
    investigating agencies are well within their legal bounds
    as aforementioned. Indeed, a noticeable feature of the
    scheme under Chapter XIV of the Code is that a
    Magistrate is kept in the picture at all stages of the police D
    investigation but he is not authorised to interfere with the
    actual investigation or to direct the police how that
    investigation is to l;>e conducted. But if a police officer
    ~ransgresses the circumscribed limits and improperly and ,
    illegally exercises his investigatory powers in breach of any E
    statutory provision causing serious prejudice to the
    personal liberty and also property of a citizen, then the court
    on being approached by the person aggrieved for the
    redress of any grievance, ~as to consider the nature and
    extent of the breach and pass appropriate orders as may F
    be called for without leaving the citizens to the mercy of
    police echelons since human dignity is a dear value of our
    Constitution."

     22. In Bhajan Lal (supra), this court in the backdrop of       G
interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure 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 of the
Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482      H
    1130    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011) 3 S.C.R.


A Cr.P.C., gave the following categories of cases by way of
  illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to
  prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure
  the ends of justice. Thus, this court made it clear that it may
  not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
B sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid
  formulae and to give an exhaustive list to 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
c       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
D       other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
        disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
        by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
        under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
        Section 155 (2) of the Code.
E
        (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, on investigation is permitted by a police officer
        without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
        Section 155(2) of the Code.
G
        (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 grounds for proceeding against the
        accused.
H
     ASMATHUNNISA v. STATE OF A.P. & ANR.                    1131
           [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
    (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted .in any         A
    of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
    which a criminal proceedings is instituted) to the institution
    and continuance 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            8
    aggrieved party.

    (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
    with ma/a 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        C
    and personal grudge."

    23. This court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. &
Others v. Mohd. Sharafuf Haque & Another (2005) 1 SCC 122
observed thus:-                                                       D

    "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/              E
    continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court
    or quas11ing-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         F ·
    complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made
    out even if the allegations are accepted in toto."
   24. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Jnder Mohan
Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2007) 12 SCC 1 (wherein              G
one of us, namely, Dalveer Bhandari, J. was the author of the
judgment) has examined scope and ambit of Section 482 of
the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court in the said case
observed that inherent powers under Section 482 should be
exercised for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the         H
    1132     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 3 S.C.R.


A process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court,
    then the court would be fully justified in preventing injustice by
    invoking inherent powers of the court.

         25. In Devendra and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
    Another (2009) 7 sec 495, this court observed as under:-
8
                "The re is no dispute with regard to the
        aforementioned propositions of law. However, it is now
        well settled that the High Court ordinarily would exercise
        its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
C       Procedure if the allegations made in the first information
        report, even if given face value and taken to be correct in
        their entirety, do not make out any offence. When the
        allegations made in the first information report or the
        evidence collected during investigation do not satisfy the
o       ingredients of an offence, the superior courts would not
        encourage harassment of a person in a criminal court for
        nothing."

       26. In State of A.P. v. Gourishetty Mahesh and Others
  (2010) 11 sec 226, this court observed that the power under
E section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is wide but has
  to be exercised with great care and caution. The interference
  must be on sound principle and the inherent power should not
  be exercised to stifle the legitimate prosecution. The court
  further observed that if the allegations set out in the complaint
F do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been
  taken by the Magistrate, it is up to the High Court to quash the
  same in exercise of its inherent power under section 482 of the
  Code.
G       27. In a recent decision in M. Mohan v. The State 2011
    (3) SCALE 78 this Court again had an occasion to consider
  the case of similar nature and this court held that if all the facts
  mentioned in the complaint are accepted as correct in its
  entirety and even then the complaint does not disclose the
H essemtial ingredients of, an offence, in such a case the High
                             I
        ASMATHUNNISA v. STATE OF A.P. & ANR.               1133
              [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

Court should ensure that such frivolous prosecutions are            A
quashed under its inherent powers under section 482 of the
Cr.P.C.

     28. When we apply the ratio of the settled principles of law
to the facts of this case, then, in our considered opinion; the     8
High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quashed the
complaint qua the appellant only to prevent abuse of the
process of law.

    29. Consequently, we set aside the impugned judgment            C
passed by the High Court and quash the complaint qua the
appellant in Crime No.50 of 2006, Police Station Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.

       30. This appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of.      o
N.J.                                           Appeal allowed.