Supreme Court of India
DR. MONICA KUMAR & ANR.versusSTATE OF U. P. & ORS.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 740
- Decided
- 27 May 2008
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that mala fide of the complainant is not a ground to quash a prima facie case and that the Court may invoke Article 142 to do complete justice in extraordinary circumstances.
Summary
Dr. Monica Kumar and her brother filed petitions under s.482 CrPC to quash two criminal cases filed against them while they were MBBS students, alleging that the complaints were motivated by the vindictive actions of the college chairman, Dr. P. Mahalingam, after a loan dispute. The High Court refused to quash the proceedings, prompting a special leave appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court examined the scope of s.482 CrPC, the relevance of alleged mala fide of the complainant, and the extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to do "complete justice". It held that the mere fact that a complainant may be mala fide is not a ground to quash a prima facie case and that the Supreme Court can, in exceptional circumstances, set aside criminal proceedings under Article 142. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order, quashed the criminal cases, and directed the appellants to file a written apology, with no compensation awarded.
Issues considered
- The High Court's power under s.482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings when a prima facie case exists.
- Whether the alleged mala fide of the complainant can be a ground for quashing the FIRs.
- Whether the Supreme Court can exercise its residuary power under Article 142 to quash criminal proceedings.
- The appropriateness of using Article 142 to override the High Court's decision under s.482 CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 155(2), s. 156(3), s. 173, s. 482
- Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 142, s. Article 32
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 308, s. 323, s. 336, s. 420, s. 427, s. 452, s. 458, s. 504, s. 506
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881s. 138
Subjects
Section 482 CrPCArticle 142 Constitutionquashing criminal proceedingsmala fide complainantinherent jurisdictionNRI studentsmedical college harassmentabuse of process
Judgment
[2008] 9 S.C.R. 943
DR. MONICA KUMAR & ANR. A
V.
STATE OF U. P. & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 968 of 2008)
MAY 27, 2008
B
[S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 482 - Power of High Court under - Nature and scope
of - Petition alleging ma/a fides in lodging complaints against c
petitioners - HELD: Mere fact that complainant is guilty of
ma/a tides would be no ground to quash proceedings.
Constitution of India, 1950:
Article 142 rlw Article Q 32 - Jurisdiction of Supreme D
Court to pass orders to do complete justice to parties - Na~
~
ture and scope of - Criminal proceedings against two NRI
students pursuing their MBBS course in India - HELO: Un-
der Article 142, Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction
may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary E
for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter' - Expres-
sion 'cause' pr 'matter' would include any proceedings, civil or
criminal, pending in Court - Power under Article 142 is in a
way corrective power which gives preference to equity over
J.
law - Looking to entire backdrop of peculiar facts of count- - F
less incidents having been faced by the two MBBS students,
nature of offences alleged against them and a/legations and
counter a/legations made by parties against each other and
coupled with tenor and contents of the apology tendered by
the petitioners, it is a fit case for exercise of extraordinary ju-
G
risdiction under Article 142 so as to bring dispute between the
parties to an end - Criminal proceedings against petitioners
> are set aside - They would file a written apology in the Court
before which proceedings are pending - Equity- Penal Code,
943 H
944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.
A 1860 - ss. 452, 323, 336, 420, 427, 504 and 506.
The appellants filed petitions u/s 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the High Court seeking
to quash criminal proceedings against them in Case
Crime No. 412 of 2005 u/ss 452, 323,504,506 and 427 IPC
B and Case Crime No. 21 of 2006 u/ss 452, 323, 336, 504,
506 and 420 IPC. The stand of the appellants was that
they got admission in MBBS Course under NRI quota in
the Medical College run by a Trust, of which respondent
No. 2 was the Chairman and Managing Director/Trustee.
c Respondent No. 2 obtained a loan of Rs. 25 lakhs from
their father. Differences and disputes arose after their fa-
ther demanded repayment of the loan from respondent
no. 2 and sought recourse to criminal proceedings against
him. This led to harassment of the two appellants in the
D College resulting in withholding of results of MBBS
course of appellant no. 1 several times, which could be f
cleared only with the intervention of the High Court. It was
the case of the appellants that respondent no. 2, having
failed in his attempts to harm the career of the appellants,
E got two criminal cases registered against them through
two employees of the College. The High Court did not find
it a fit case for exercise of inherent power to quash the
charge sheets submitted in the two cases. Aggrieved, the
petitioners filed the instant appeals.
F Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is well-settled principle of law that while
exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High
Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision.
Inherent jurisdiction under the Section is to be exercised
G
sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such
exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid in the
Section itself. it is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do '
real and substantial justice for the administration of which
courts exist. When a complaint is sought to be quashed
H
DR. MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U. P. 945
& ORS.
it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what A
the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is
made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.
[para 27] [966-C,D & E]
R. P Kapur v. State of Punjab (1960) 3 SCR 388; State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) 2 Suppl. I SCC 335 relied on . B
...
1.2 The powers of the High Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. are very wide and the very plenitude of the power
requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be care-
ful to see that its decision in exercise oj this power is based c
on sound principles. 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
the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when
D
the evidence has not been collected and produced be-
~
fore the Court and the issues involved, whether factual
or legal, are of 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 cases in which
the High Court will exercise its jurisdiction of quashing E
the proceedings at any stage. [para 30] [967-D,E,F & G]
Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhury (1992) 4 SCC 305;
Raghubir Saran Dr. v. State of Bihar 1964 (2) SCR 336;
) Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 451; F
and Zhandu Pharmaceuticals Works Limited and Others v.
Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Another 2005 (1) SCC 122 - re-
lied on.
1.3 The question of ma/a tides in a case like the
present one, is not at all relevant. If the complaint .is cor- G
rect and the offence has been committed which will have
" to be established in a court of law, it is of no significance
that the complainant is a person who is inimical or that
he is guilty of ma/a ffdes. If the ingredients which estab-
lish the commission of the offence or misconduct exist, H
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.
A then the prosecution cannot fail merely because there
was an animus of the complainant or the prosecution
against the accused. Allegations of ma/a tides may be rel-
evant while judging the correctness of the allegations or
while examining the evidence. But the mere fact that the
s complainant is guilty of ma/a fides, would be no ground
for quashing the proceedings. [para 31] [968-A,B & C]
State of Maharashtra v /shwar Piraji Ka/patri (1996) 1
SCC 542; Zhandu Pharmaceuticals Works Limited and Oth-
ers v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Another 2005 (1) SCC 122;
C State of Bihar & Anr. v. J.A. C Saldanah (1980) 1 SCC 544;
State of Orissa v Saro) Kumar Sahoo 2005 (13) SCC 540 -
relied on.
2.1 So far as the instant appeals are concerned, a
series of civil writ petitions and criminal proceedings be-
0
sides contempt proceedings were initiated by the appel-
lants in which allegations of ma/a tides, acts of victimiza-
tion and physical and mental harassment were alleged
against the second respondent in his personal capacity
and also as a Chairman/Managing Director of the College
E Trust. The appellants are facing trial of Case Crime No.
412/2005 lodged against them by third respondent, un-
der Sections 458/323/504/506 IPC and Case Crime No. 21/
2006 registered on 14.01.2006 at the behest of the Secu-
rity Guard of the institution, under Sections 452/323/336/
F 504/506 and 427 IPC. These cases pertained to the pe-
riod when the appellants were students and studying
MBBS Course in the College. [para 33) [969-A,B,D & E]
2.2 The entire details of the facts of the case do indi-
G cate that the appellants during their study of MBBS
Course had some problems with the second respondent,
some staff of the College and the then SHO of Police Sta-
tion concerned whose daughter was also studying in the
same College. The record would reveal that both the ap-
H pellants being NRI candidates have undergone physical
DR. MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U. P. 947
& ORS.
and mental agony and torture during their student career A.
in pursuing the MBBS course. They had spent most of
their precious time in litigation in the courts fighting for
their genuine and legitimate claims. They may be lacking
in maintaining discipline in the College for which they
have been facing criminal proceedings forthe past about B
3 years. [para 34] [971-D,E & F]
3.1 Looking to the entire backdrop of the peculiar
facts of countless ~ncidents having been faced by the ap~
pellants during their primary life as MBBS students and
the nature of the offences alleged against them and alle- C
gations and counter allegations in various complaints
made by the parties against each other and coupled with
the tenor and contents of the apology tendered by the
appellants, it is a fit case where the Court should exer-
cise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution D
of India. [para 34) [971-G & H; 972-A]
3.2 The Court is conscious of the well-settled law that
in a prosecution where prima facie case is made out and
charge sheet is filed in the competent court, it is that court
which will deal with the case on merits in accordance with E
law, and the High Court should not, except in extraordi-
nary circumstances, exercise its jurisdiction under Sec-
tion 482 Cr.P.C. so as to quash the criminal proceedings
after they have been lodged. [para 34] [972-B & CJ
F
Som Mittal v: Government of Kamataka (2008) 2 SCR
323 = (2008) ·2 sec 753 - referred to.
3.3 Under Article 142 of the Constitution this Court
in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or
make such order as is necessary for doing complete jus- G
tice in any 'cause' or 'matter' pending before it The ex-
pression "cause" or "matter" would include any proceed-
ings pending in court and it would cover alrriost every
kind of proceedings in court includin'g civil or criminal.
Though there is no provision like SectiOn 482 of the Crimi- H
948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.
A nal Procedure Code conferring express power on the
Supreme Court to quash or set aside any criminal pro-
ceedings pending before a criminal court to prevent abuse
of process of the court, but the inherent power of this
Court under Article 142 coupled with the plenary and re-
8 siduary powers under Articles 32 and 136 embraces
power to quash criminal proceedings pending before any
court to do complete justice in the matter before this Court. •
[para 35] [972-C,D,E & F]
3.4 If the court is satisfied that the proceedings in a
C criminal case are being utilised for oblique purposes or if
the same are continued on manufactured and false evi-
dence or if no case is made out on the admitted facts, it
would be in the ends of justice to set aside or quash the
criminal proceedings. Once this Court is satisfied that the
D criminal proceedings amount to abuse of process of
court, it would quash such proceedings to ensure jus-
tice. [para 35] [972- F & G]
3.5 This Court's power under Article 142(1) to do
"complete justice" is entirely of different level and of a
E different quality. What would be the need of "complete
justice" in a cause or matter would depend upon the facts
and circumstances of each case and while exercising that
power the Court would take into consideration the ex-
press provisions of a substantive statute. Any prohibition
F or restriction contained in ordinary laws cannot act as a
limitation on the constitutional power of this Court. Once
this Court has seisin of a cause or matter before it, it has
power to issue any order or direction to do "complete jus-
tice" in the matter. [para 35] (972-H; 973-A & BJ.
G
Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co.
(P) Ltd. (1996) 4 SCC 622; Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (1995)
2 SCC 584 and Kera/a State Electricity Board v. Kurien E.
Katathit (2000) 6 sec 293 - relied on.
H 3.6 The power to do complete justice under Article 142
DR. MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U. P. 949
& ORS.
is, in a way, corrective power, which gives preference to A
equity over law. It is a residuary power, supplementary and
complementary to the pow~rs specially conferred by the
statutes to do complete justice between the parties when-
ever itis just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent
any obstruction to the stream of justice. Having regard to B
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit
case where this Court should exercise its discretionary ju-
risdiction under Art,icle 142 of the Constitution of India so as·
to bring the dispute between the parties to an end. In this
view of the matter, in order to do complete justice to the par- c
ties in the backdrop of the peculiar facts of this case and
other circumstances and also taking into consideration the
future career of the appellants who by this time might have
joined the noble medical profession, and owing to the rea-
sons given and observations made in the judgment, the or-
der of the High Court impugned in the appeal is set aside D
subject to the directions contained in the judgment. [para
36, 37 and 39J [973-D,E,F & G; 974-B & CJ
3.7 Consequently, criminal proceedings arising out
of Case Crime No. 412/2005 under Sections 452, 323, 504, E
506 and 427 IPC and Case Crime No. 21/2006 under Sec-
tio.ns 452, 323, 336, 504, 506 and 427 IPC and charges said
to have been framed by the trial court based upon the
said criminal cases against the appellants shall stand
quashecf.· [para 40J [974-D & EJ F
4. As regards the plea on behalf of the complainants for
compensation, since the appellants at the relevant time were
students, no amount of compensation be directed to be paid.
They must, however, file a written apology in the courts where
the proceedings are pending. [para 39J [974-C & DJ G
5. It is made clear that any observations made in the
judgment may not be construed as an expression of opin-
ion on the genuineness, authenticity, validity and legality
of the allegations and. counter-allegations levelled by the
H
950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.
A parties against each other in different proceedings. The
proceedings of the FIRs initiated against the appellants
have been closed mainly in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 142 of the Constitution. [para 41] [974-F & G]
B CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 968 of 2008
From the Final Judgment & Order dated 24.8.2006 of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Misc. Application
Nos. 7791 and 7792 of 2006
C Harish N. Salve, Uday U. Lalit, K. Pavan Kumar and
Siddhartha Chowdhury for the Appellant.
A. Sharan, A.S.G., C.S. Vaidyanathan, P.P. Rao, Amit
Pawan, B.K. Prasad, P. Parmeswaran, K.K. Venugopal, Liz.
D Mathew, S. Chandra Shekhar, Manoj V. George, Pramod Dayal,
Nikunj Dayal, Shail Kumar Dwivedi, Vandana Mishra, Vibha
Dwivedi, Kamalendra Mishra and C.D. Singh for the Respon-
dents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the final judgment and
order dated 24.08.2006 passed by the High Court of Judica-
ture at Allahabad whereby and where under the High Court has
F dismissed Criminal Miscellaneous Applications bearing Nos.
7792 of 2006 and 7791 of 2006 filed by the appellants under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short
'Cr.P.C.'] in Case Crime No. 412 of 2005 under Sections 452,
323, 504, 506 and 427of the Indian Penal Code [for short 'the
G IPC'] and in Case Crime No. 21 of 2006 under Sections 452,
323, 336, 504, 506, 420 IPC respectively registered against
them at Police Station, Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad and
seeking for entrustment of further investigation of the aforesaid
cases to the Central Bureau of Investigation [for short 'the CBI'].
H 3. This c::ise would reveal a chequered history of legal
DR. MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U. P. 951
~ & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA. J.]
battle being fought by the appellants - the students of Santosh A
Medical.College on one hand and the authorities ofthe College
on the other hand.
4. Dr. Narendra Kumar, the father of the appellants, is pres-
ently working as Professor/Medical Director of Neonatal Inten-
sive Care Unit [Nl'CU] and also performing medical practice at 8
2917, Middleboro Place, Modesto, California. Both the appel-
lants were born in California and completed their schooling in
USA. They decided to get admission in MBBS course for the
academic session 1996-97 in Santosh Medical College,
Ghaziabad [for short 'College'] against NRI quota after remit- C
ting US $50,000 and US $49, 700 respectively towards capita-
tion fees and additional hostel fees of RS. 75,000 and Rs. 45,000
and security deposits for one year. That apart, the College took
a loan of Rs. 25 lakhs on interest@ 11.5% p.a. from the father
of the appellants and its payment was assured by a handwrit- D
ten slip. The disputes and differences arose after the father of
T
the appellants demanded repayment of the loan from Dr. P.
Mahalingam-the second respondent herein, Chairman & Man-
aging Director/Trustee of Maharaji Educational Trust and
Santosh Medical College and Hospital, Pratap Vihar, Vijay E
Nagar, Ghaziabad. In April 2001, the matter was reported to
the Additional District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, for taking appro-
priate steps to get the loan amount refunded. Dr. P. Mahalingam
- the second respondent in his letter dated 9.4.2001 acknowl-
edged the liability and had also assureq to refund the entire F
loan amount. It was alleged that the second respondent with
vindictive attitude started harassing the appellants and in the
result declared in July 2000, Dr. Monica Kumar - the first ap-
pellant was got failed in both theory papers of Pharmacology
and she was not allowed to appear in two subsequent suppl!'!- G
mentary examinations as well as in Final Professional MBBS
·Part-I Examination.
5. The first appellant filed a Writ Petition No. 9150 of 2001
in the High Court wherein vide order dated 14.3.2001, the sec-
ond respondent was directed to permit the first appellant to H
952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.
A appear in the final Professional MBBS Part-I Examination. In
compliance of the High Court's order, the first appellant was
permitted to appear in the examination, but her result was de-
liberately withheld for an oblique motive which compelled the
first appellant to approach the High Court of Allahabad by way
B of Miscellaneous Application in the pending Writ Petition No.
9150/2001 for issuing necessary directions for declaration of
her result. The High Court vide order dated 19.9.2001 directed
the College authorities to declare the results of MBBS Final
Professional Part-I Examination, 2001 and the result of the scru-
C tiny of Pharmacology of Second Professional Examination,
2000 and further to permit the first appellant to appear in Final
MBBS Part-II Examination and to declare the result of the said
examination as well. By Orders dated 7.01.2002/16.01.2002,
the High Court directed the college authorities to produce an-
D swer books of Pharmacology of the first appellant. On
4.03.2002, the High Court got the answer books of the first ap-
pellant re-examined by the Head of Department of Pharmacol-
ogy of Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad in the court
itself. On re-examination of the papers, the first appellant se-
cured good marks in both the papers and accordingly, the col-
E lege authorities were directed to declare her results forthwith. It
appears that the orders/directions of the High Court were not
complied with which gave rise to the first appellant to file con-
tempt of court proceedings against the college authorities. The
High Court vide order dated 9.4.2002 directed the College au-
F thorities to be present personally in the Court but in the mean-
time on 22.04.2002 the result was declared and for no valid
reasons, the first appellant was declared failed in Surgery Prac-
tical Examination. The first appellant left with no other remedy,
but to approach the High Court by means of another writ peti-
G tion. The High Court directed the second respondent to pro-
duce before it the tabulation chart of Surgery Practical Exami-
nation of all the students including the first appellant. The High
Court on 12.11.2002 having noticed serious allegations of ma/a
fide, restrained Dr. P. Mahalingam - the second respondent
H from interfering in and conducting examination of the first ap-
DR. MONICA KUMAR & ;A.NR. v. STATE OF U. P. 953
& ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
• pellant and further directed that the practical examination of the A
first appellant be got conducted through Agra Medical College
in which the first appellant was declared pass with 70% marks.
6. The appellants alleged that having miserably failed in
all attempts to ruin the career of the first appellant, Dr.
Mahalingam - the second respondent on 04.04.2003 got a false 8
and frivolous report lodged under Sections 504 and 506 IPC
through his yes-man and associate - Dr. Anil Tamar against all
the members of the appellants' family whereupon Case Crime
No. 286 of 2003 was registered against them. Both the appel-
lants and their parents filed Writ Petition No. 1923 of 2003 seek- C
ing for quashing the said criminal case and the High Court vide
order dated 17.4.2003, stayed the arrest of the appellants and
their parents during the investigation of the above-said FIR.
The Police rushed to file charge sheet without making any fair
and effective investigation against which Criminal Miscellaneous D
Application No. 8542 of 2003 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was
filed by the parents of the appellants in the High Court for quash-
ing the charge sheet and the High Court vide its order stayed
further proceedings pending before the trial court.
7. On a complaint made by the father of the appellants E
and on intervention of the District Magistrate and S.S.P.,
Ghaziabad, Dr. P. Mahalingam - the second respondent on
28.02.2003 allegedly, gave 5 cheques for Rs. 5 lakhs each
against the loan amount and two demand drafts of Rs. 2.5 lacs
each on account of payment of the accrued interest. It was stated F
that one cheque was dishonoured on 18.10.2003 and the fa-
ther of appellants preferred a Criminal Case No. 7272 of 2003
against Dr. Mahalingam - the second respondent under Sec-
tion 138 of the Nego.tiable Instruments Act in the Court of Addi-
tional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad wherein by order G
dated 24.1.2004 the second respondent and others were sum-
+ moned as accused persons. On filing of the above criminal
case by the father of the appellants, the second respondent got
infuriated and became more and more vindictive against the
appellants and their family members. H
954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.
.
I
A 8. The appellants then stated that the tape recorded con-
versation held between the father of the appellants and Dr. M.K.
Shrivastava, Principal of the College, would clearly reveal that
Dr. P. Mahalingam - the second respondent is the main person
instrumental in victimisation and harassing of the appellants.
B On 2.5.2004 and 2.6.2004 the appellants were allegedly as-
saulted mercilessly by tbe second respondent, Anil Somania,
Station Officer, P.S. Vijay Nagar and their drivers. The first ap-
pellant was·molested and she had been threatened to be kid-
napped, raped and even murdered whereas the Dr. Manish
c Kumar- the second appellant, brother of the first appellant was
assaulted with kicks, fists, shoes and sticks. They got them-
selves medically examined at the Government M.M.G. Hospi-
tal, Ghaziabad and on refusal to register their FIR by the Police
of Police Station, Ghaziabad, the appellants proceeded to file
D an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before Chief Judi-
cial Magistrate, Ghaziabad seeking direction to the police to
register the FIR and hold proper investigation in the case.
Though the said application was initially rejected by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, but in view of the order of the lllrd Addi-
tional District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, the Chief Judi-
E cial Magistrate by order dated 3.10.2005 directed the concerned
Police Station Officer to register the case against the culprits.
l
9. Aggrieved thereby, Dr. P. Mahalingam - the second re-
spondent filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the High Court
F which was dismissed vide order dated 9.11.2005. In pursu-
ance of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated
03.10.2005 and subsequent order of the High Court dated
9.11.2005, FIR at the instance of Dr. Monica bearing Crime
No. 425 of 2005 was registered on 28.11.2005 under Sections
G 147/323/34ZL.352/354/427/504 and 506 IPC at the Police Sta-
tion against Dr. P. Mahalingam and other persons named in the
complaint.
1O. The appellants stated that as citizens of the United
States of America, they sent a representation to the President
H of USA whereupon White House responded and sent a letter
DR. MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U. P. 955
~'ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.] .
dated August 161h 2004 informing the appellants that White A
House had decided to send the petition to the Department of
State to address the grievances of the appellants. Further, by
letter dated August 30, 2004 the appellants were also informed
about the steps having been taken by the USA.
11. The appellants also stated that even on issuance of 8
.1 satisfactory completion certificate of internship to the first ap-
pellant duly signed by all the Professors and Heads of Depart-
ments, Medical Officers and Dean of Faculty on 18/19.3.2004,
the Principal of the College who was simply required to coun-
tersign internship completion certificate, deliberately for no valid C
reason entered the word 'unsatisfactory' by antedating it as
16.01.2004 at the behest of Dr. P. Mahalingam - the second
respondent as a re?ult thereof the first appellant could not get
the MBBS Degree for getting herself enrolled with Medical
Council of India nor she could appear in any Post Graduation D
~
Examination. Aggrieved by the action of the Principal of the
College, the first appellant preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 19069
of 2004 in the High Court of Allahabad and the High Court vide
its order dated 11.01.2005, recorded that the certificate is- ·
sued by the competent authorities was deliberately.antedated. E
The learned single Judge of the High Court by order dated
17 .2 .2005 disposed of the said writ petition as counsel for Dr.
P. Mahalingam - the second respondent produced a fresh cer-
tificate reporting therein that the first appellant had completed
, her internship satisfactorily and therefore was eligible for MBBS F
Degree. The first appellant being aggrieved against the order
by which other reliefs prayed for in the writ petition were de-
clined, filed a Special Appeal in the High Court which was al-
lowed on 31.3.2005, directing the authorities concerned to is-
sue other required certificates, i.e. character certificate, pass G
certificate and attempt certificate to the first appellant.
• 12. In compliance to the order of the High Court Dr. P.
Mahalingam - the second respondent issued character certifi-
cate, pass certificate and attempt certificate to the fist appel-
lant but with wrong dates and incomplete particulars. The first H
956 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R
A appellant again was forced to file Contempt Petition No. 4057 '
of 2005 against the second respondent praying for taking legal
proceedings against him for violation of the court's order. The
High Court on 23.12.2005 recorded the following order:-
"This court without going into the controversy is not issuing
B any notice on the contempt application a~ this stage and
disposes of this application with a direction to the opposite •
party to consider the request made by the applicant in her
representation within three weeks from the date of the
production of a certified copy of this order. If the grievance
c of the applicant is found to be genuine, in that event, fresh
certificates shall be issued immediately."
13. The appellants stated that Dr. P. Mahalingam - the
second respondent found a good ally in Anil Somania the then
D Station Officer of P.S. Vijay Nagar whose daughter was also
studying in the same College and thus was able to intensify the
harassment of the appellants and got initiated criminal proceed-
ings against them under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. This time
again on being approached by the appellants, the High Court
E by order dated 25.11.2005 stayed those proceedings.
14. Having failed in all earlier attempts to harm the ca-
reers of the appellants, the second respondent allegedly in col-
lusion withAnil Somani, SHO, instigated Dr. l.M. Sharma, War-
den of Girls Hostel of the College the third respondent herein
F and got a false and frivolous FIR No. 297/2005 (Case Crime ....
No. 412/2005) dated 5.10.2005 registered against the appel-
lants under Section 452/323/504 and 506 IPC at P.S. Vijay
Nagar. The appellants filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
No. 11192 of 2005 in the High Court and the High Court on
G 7 .11 .2005 passed the following order:-
"Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
the arrest of the petitioners for the offences indicate. above
is stayed till the submission of the report on the following
conditions:-
H
DR. MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U. P. 957
& ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
1. That the petitioners will not be arrested in respect of A
the said crime number during the pendency of the
investigation provided they cooperate with the
investigation.
2. The stay of arrest will operate only if certified copy of
B
this order along with one self attested copy of the
writ petition is served upon the investigation officer
within fifteen days from today.
3. The stay of arrest will cease to operate if it is decided
to submit a charge sheet after investigation. c
4. Because the complainant has not been head at this
stage, therefore, it will be open to the complainant or
the investigation officer who has not been given
opportunity to file counter affidavit or any other party
aggrieved to apply in this writ petition for recall/ D
modification of this order, if any misstatement is
found in the material facts stated in the writ petition
or other legally valid ground which may be available
to the party so applying.
E
5. The investigating officer will make all possible efforts
to conclude the investigation within three months of
the date on which a certified copy of this order is
served upon him.
The SSP Ghaziabad is directed to hand over investigation F
of this case to a Gazetted Officer not below to the rank of
Deputy Superintendent of Police."
15. Leaving no stone unturned to fulfill his vengeance and
revengeful attitude against the appellants, the second respon-
dent got one more frivolous FIR bearing Crime No. 21 of 2006 G
dated 14.1.2006 registered against them under Sections 452/
323/336/504/506 and 427 !PC at P.S. Vijay Nagar at the be-
hest of Rajendra Kuntal - Head Security Guard of Dr. P.
Mahalingam. The complaint of Rajendra Kuntal was sent through
Ram Murti Mani Kandan, Personal Manager of the second re- H
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.
A spondent, to the Police Statio.n. The appellants were arrestecl
on 15.01.2006 from their house and lodged in jail. They were
released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge on 31.01.2006.
16. Owing to constant threats and victimisation by Dr. P.
Mahalingam in collusion with the local police, the appellants'filed
8 Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.' 1947 of 2006 praying for CBI
investigation into the matter. On 22.07.2006, the High Court
passed the following order:- ·.
"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we
c are of the view that the correct position of the investigation
of the cases be also brought on record. Therefore, learned
AGA is directed to file counter affidavit annexing the copies
of the statement of the prosecution witnesses recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in the cases referred to above.
D The case be listed on 27.3.2006.
The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad shall look
into the grievances of the petitioners regarding the ill-
treatment/humiliation/harassment etc. by the local police
and the respondents/accused concerned and ensure
E adequate security to them and their family members in all
respects and submit the compliance report on or before
10th March, 2006.
Let a copy of this order be furnished to the learned AGA
F free of cost by tomorrow for intimating the authority
concerned."
17. The appellants alleged that Sub-Inspector J. K.
Gangwar ought not to have conducted the investigation of the
cases, as in the earlier proceedings, the High Court made ob-
G servations that he was under the influence of SHO Anil Somani.
S.I. Gangwar without proper and fair investigation hurriedly pre-
pared and filed charge sheet in the trial court on the basis of
which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate proceeded to take
cognizance of the offences against the appellants.
H
DR. MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U. P. 959
& ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
.. 18. The appellants then preferred two separate petitions A
referred to above under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
the said Fl Rs and entrusting further investigation of the cases
to CBI. The High Court by impugned order dated 24.08.2006
dismissed the petition. Hence, the appellants are before us in
this joint appeal by way of special leave. B
19. We have heard the learned counsel forthe parties and
meticulously examined the entire material on record.
20. Shri Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel appear-
ing for the appellants, assailed the judgment .of the High Court c
inter alia contending that the First Information Reports and fur-
ther proceedings initiated thereto by the trial court against the
appellants are vitiated on the following grounds:-
(i) that the allegations made in the Fl Rs and evidence
collected during investigation on their face are so D
absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent
person can ever arrive at a conclusion that there are
sufficient grounds for proceeding against the
appellants-students of MBBS course for the
commission of the alleged offences registered at E
the instance of the employees of the College;
(ii) that the appellants' case is fully covered by the
principles laid down by this Court in the case of State
of Haryana v. Bhajanlal (1995) Suppl. SCC 335
and the High Court has misapplied the ratio of the F
said case in the facts of the present case;
(iii) that the High Court has failed to appreciate that there
was an apparent nexus between Dr. P. Mahalingam
-the second respondent and two informers, who in
G
collusion with the local police, have launched two
t
false and vexatious criminal cases against the
appellants in continuation of series of acts of
victimization and harassment first to spoil their future
career;
H
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 9 S. C.R.
A (iv) the High Court has failed to appreciate that the
material on record leaves no room of doubt that the
Criminal Cases were initiated at the instance of Dr.
P. Mahalingam - the second respondent due to ma/a
fide intention, vengeance and animosity in
B continuation of his designs to misappropriate the
loan amount advanced to him by the father of the
appellant for establishment of the College;
(v) that the High Court has failed to appreciate that Dr.
P. Mahalingam who happens to be the Chairman
C and Sole Trustee of the Maharaj Ji Educational Trust
which is running the Santosh Medical College for
imparting medical education at the Under Graduate
Level, which is one of the noblest professional
qualification that one can impart on human beings,
D has been indulging in acts of omissions and
commissions which are wholly unexpected of him.
After having failed in all his repeated attempts to
spoil the career of the appellants, the second
respondent adopted a vindictive attitude towards
E the appellants and the facts of the present case clearly
establish that the allegations made in the complaints
are not only false but are the result of mala fides of
Dr. P. Mahalingam. ·
21. In opposition, Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned Addi-
F tional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of CBI - the fourth
respondent, urged before us that acceptability of ma/a fides
against second respondent is a matter of trial and that it is not a
case where charge sheet prima facie does not disclose com-
mission of offences and that the defence pleaded by the appel-
G !ants, is in fact, has to be considered by the courts below during
the trial of the cases pending against them.
22. Shri Shail Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel appear-
ing on behalf of the State of U.P., supported the contention of
the learned counsel for CBI and submitted that since the inves-
H
DR. MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U. P. 961
& ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
, tigation of the cases having been completed, charge sheets A
filed and charges framed by the trial court against the appel-
lants, therefore, now the trial is completely in the domain of the
trial court and certainly it is not a proper stage of quashing the
FIRs and charge sheets filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. In sup-
port, reliance is placed on Som Mittal v. Government of B
Kamataka (2008) 3 SCC 753; State of H.P v. Prithi Chand
1 (1996) 2 SCC 37 and State of Orissa & Anr. v. Saroj Kumar
Sahoo (2005) 13 SCC 540 to contend that the inherent power
of the High Court for quashing criminal proceedings should be
exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too C
in the rarest of rare cases and that the present case does not
fall in that category.
23. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel app'ear-
ing on behalf of Dr. P. Mahalingam - the second respondent,
vehemently contended that the appellants have concocted con- D
tradictory stories in different proceedings regarding their alleged
harassment by the College authorities inasmuch as they ini-
tially took the plea that they were allegedly being harassed by
Dr. M.K. Srivastava - Principal of the College because he
wanted the second appellant to marry his daughter but in sub- E
sequent proceedings the appellants changed their earlier stand
and took up another false plea that they were being harassed
at the behest of the second respondent from whom their father
demanded the return of loan amount of Rs. 25 lakhs. He sub-
mitted that it was proved on record that loan amount of Rs. 25 F
lakhs has already been paid to the father of the appellants by
way of cheques and bank drafts way back in the year 2003
itself. Mr. Venugopal has brought to our notice the relevant para-
graphs of counter. affidavit filed by the second respondent in
opposition to the present appeal in which the allegations of the
appellants that they were intentionally got failed in the examina- G
tions at the instance of the second respondent has been cat-
' egorically denied. The second respondent stated that the first
appellant had failed repeatedly due to her poor performance in
the examination and definitely not due to any amount of harass-
H
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 9 S.C.R.
A ment or acts of victimization by him as alleged by the first ap- •
pellant, whereas the second appellant could successfully com-
plete his MBBS Course and, accordingly, all certificates like
Internship Certificate, Passing Certificate and Character Cer-
tificate were issued to him on successful completion of the
B course. He submitted that the record of the College would re-
veal that despite a series of complaints regarding the act of ,
indiscipline of the first appellant, he always took a lenient view
so that she should not suffer in her studies and he has always
extended full support to every student including the first appel-
C lant. He submitted that the FIRs were registered against the
appellants by the employees of the College in their personal
capacity for the commission of the alleged offences by them
and their allegations that the said cases were registered at his
behest, are absolutely false, baseless and unfounded. He then
D submitted that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction un-
der Section 482 Cr.P.C .. has found prima facie case against
the appellants and recorded well-reasoned order which is based
upon pmper appreciation of the settled proposition of law, this
Court, therefore, shall restrain itself from interfering with the
impugned order of the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction
E under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
24. Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for
Dr. M.K. Shrivastava - Principal of the College and Dr. l.M.
Sharma - Warden of Girls Hostel (an informant of Case Crime
F No. 412 of 2005), contended that not only the police found prima
facie case but the court below also found sufficient material
against the appellants on the basis of which cognizance of the
offences alleged against them in Case Crime No. 412 of 2005
was taken and the trial court now has framed charges against
the appellants. He next contended ·that the mere fact that se-
~ nior police officer's daughter was a student of the respondent-
College by itself would not lead to the conclusion that investiga-
tion of the cases registered against the appellants was tainted
or not being conducted properly and fairly by the Investigation
Officer. He supported the order of the High Court which, ac-
H
DR. MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U. P. 963
& ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
cording to him, is valid and legal both on facts and law. A
25. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
having noticed and considered the proposition of law laid down
by this Court in a number of decisions, the learned Single Judge
of the High Court observed:
B
~ "The contents of the report registered as Case Crime No.
412 of 2005 under Sections, 452, 323, 504, 506 421 IPC
at Police Station Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad, transpires that
on 5.10.2005 at about 6 p.m. Dr. Monica Kumar and Dr.
Manish Kumar entered in the house of Dr. Indra Mohini c
Sharma, H. No. 14, Sector-12, Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad
with knife and brick bats. They started hurling abuses to
her saying that she is much close to Dr. P. Mahalingam.
She was also slapped and was also threatened that her
children would be kidnapped and killed. On her cries, D
security men namely, Rajveer, Prem pal and some of the
students of the College, came for her rescue. Some of
the household goods were also damaged by them. The
victim (Dr. Indra Mohini Sharma) who is teacher in Santosh
Medical College under Section 161 of the Code supported
the F.l.R. version and mentioned that both the accused E
threatened and slapped her. She was rescued by the
security men Rajveer and Prem Pal. Police also recorded
statement of these two security men also of Gaurav
; Pandey, student of the College who reiterated about the
incident. For the other incident dated 14.1.2006 report F
was lodged as Case Crime No.21of2006 under Sections
452, 323, 336, 504, 506, 420 IPC at Police Station Vijay
Nagar, Ghaziabad, against Dr. Monica Kumar and Dr.
Manish Kumar as they are said to have beaten the security
man Rajendra Kuntal and also damaged the College G
properties. The investigating officer has recorded the
statement of Rajendra Kuntal and other security personnel
namely Prempal and Manoj Kumar. Both the witnesses
have supported the FIR version.
H
964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.
A It may be mentioned that in exercise of the proceedings
under Section 482 of the Code, this Court has to prima
facie ascertain about the existence of the sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused. For limited purpose
the court can evaluate the material and documents on
B record but it cannot appreciate the evidence so as to
access the credibility of the statement of the witnesses
recorded in the course of investigation. Further it is not
required to appreciate the evidence to find out whether
the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting
c the accused. In the case of Chand Dhawan v: Jawahar
Lal (1992) 3 SCC 317 it was observed by the Apex Court
that when the material relied upon by a party are required
to be proved, no inference can be drawn on the basis of
materials to conclude the FIR/complaint version to be
unacceptable. The scope of exercise of the power under
D
Section 482 of the Code and categories of the cases
where High Court may exercise its power under it relating
to cognizable offences to prevent the abuse of the process
of court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set
in detail by the Apex Court in the case of {State of Haryana
E v. Ch. Bhajan Lal 1995 Suppl. I SCC 335] they have
been enumerated as under:-
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
F 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
G 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.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
H
DR. MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U. P. 965
& ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support A
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 B
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 c
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 D
(under which a criminal proceeding 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 aggrieved party. E
( (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. F
Here allegations made in the report and the evidence so
collected in the course of investigation construe a
cognizable offence, it would not fall in any category of the
case enumerated above, call for the exercise of extra
G
ordinary powers or inherent power quashing the charge
sheet submitted in the above-noted cases."
26. The special leave petition came up before this Court
on 20.11.2006 on which date it was ordered:
H
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.
A "Issue notice.
On an oral prayer made by the learned counsel, issue
notice to Union of India confined to the question as to
whether the investigation be done by the C.B.I. in the event
the Court finds it necessary to do so.
B
The Court below may frame charges wherefor the
petitioners shall make them available on the next date
fixed. Thereafter, further proceedings shall remain stayed.
Four weeks' time is granted for filing counter affidavit.
C Two weeks' time, thereafter, is granted for filing rejoinder."
27. The parties have exchanged their counter affidavits
and rejoinders. Indisputably, there is no quarrel with the well-
settled principles of law that while exercising powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court does not function as a court
0
of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the Section
though has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution
and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically
laid in the Section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae
to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which
E courts exist. When the complaint is sought to be quashed it is
permissible to look into the materials to assess what the com-
plainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even
if the allegation are accepted in toto.
F 28. In R.P Kapur v. State of Punjab (1960) 3 SCR 388,
this Court summarises some categories of cases in which in-
herent power can and should be exercised to quash the pro-
ceedings:-
(i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar
G against the institution or continuance e.g. want of
sanction;
(ii) Where the allegations in the first information report
or complaint taken at their face value and accepted
in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged.
H
DR MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U. P. 967
· & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
(iii) Where the allegations constitute an offence, but there A
is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence
adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
29. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. and the categories of cases where the High Court may
exercise its power under ii relating to cognizable offences to B
prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court
which has been dealt with by the High Court in State of Haryana
v. Bhajan Lal (1992) 2 Suppl. I SCC 335. In the said case, a
note of caution to the effect was, however, added that the power C
should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and
that too in the rarest of rare cases. The illustrative categories
indicated by this Court are earlier extracted in the order of the
High Court.
30. We may reiterate and emphasise that the powers pos- D
, sessed by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are very
wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution
·~
in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in
exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inher-
ent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate pros- E
ecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should ·
normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case
where the entire 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 F
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 cases in which the High Court will exercise
its jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. [See
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhury (1992) 4 SCC 305; Raghubir G
Saran Dr. v. State of Bihar 1964 (2) SCR 336; Kurukshetra
University v. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 451; and Zhandu
Pharmaceuticals Works Umited and Others v. Mohd. Sharaful
Haque and Another 2005 (1) SCC 122].
H
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 9 S.C.R.
A 31. In fact, the question of mala fides in a case like the
present is not at all relevant. If the complaint which is made is
correct and offence has been committed which will have to be
established in a court of law, it is of no significance that the
complainant is a person who is inimical or that he is guilty of
B ma/a tides. If the ingredients which establish the commission
of the offence or misconduct exist then, the prosecution cannot
fail merely because there was an animus of the complainant or
the prosecution against the accused. Allegations of mala fides
may be relevant while judging the correctness of the allegations
c or while examining the evidence. But the mere fact that the
complainant is guilty of mala fides, would be no ground for
quashing the proceedings. [See State of Maharashtra v. /sh war
Piraji Ka/patri (1996) 1 SCC 542; Zhandu Pharmaceuticals
Works Limited and Others v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and An-
o other 2005 (1) SCC 122; State of Bihar & Anr. v. J.A. C.
Sa/danah (1980) 1 SCC 544; State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar
Sahoo 2005 (13) sec 540]. There may be some exceptions
to the said rule but we are not concerned with such a case.
32. This Court in the latest decision has held that where
E investigation was completed, charge sheet had been filed and
charges are framed, the High Court should not ordinarily em-
bark upon an enquiry as to the reliability of offences to sustain
the allegations made in the complaint which is the function of
the trial court. [see Som Mitta/ v. Government of Karnataka
F (2008) 2 sec 753]
33. Having given our careful consideration to the submis-
sions made by the learned counsel for the parties and in the
backdrop of the facts and in the light of principles of law high-
lighted above, we have examined the entire material placed on
G record by the parties in the case on hand. Indisputably, both the
appellants took admission in the MBBS course in the session
1996-97 in Santosh Medical College and Hospital under the
NRI quota against handsome payments of US $50,000 and
US$49,700 each in addition to hostel charges and security
H deposit, i.e. Rs. 75,GOO/- and Rs. 45,000/- respectively for one
DR. MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U. P. 969
& ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
year. Irr April 2000, Dr. P. Mahalingam - the second respon- A
dent, Chairman/Managing Director of the Medical College took
a loan of Rs. 25 lakhs on interest at the rate of 11.5 % from Dr.
Narendra Kumar, father of the appellants. As noticed in the ear-
lier part of this judgment, a series of civil writ petitions and crimi-
nal proceedings besides contempt proceedings were initiated B.
by the appellants in which allegations of ma/a tides, acts of vic-
timization ahd physical and mental harassment were alleged
against the second respondent in his personal capacity and
also as a Chairman/Managing Director of the College Trust.
The appellants filed application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. c
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the basis of which case
under Section 347/502/506/342/352/ 354 and 427 IPC has
been registered against the defaulters. The second respondent
is said to have challenged the order of the Magistrate but he
could not succeed. The appellants are facing trial of Case Crime D
No. 412/2005 lodged against them by Dr. Indra Mohini Sharma,
third respondent, under Sections 458/323/504/506 IPC and
Case Crime No.21/2006 registered on 14.01.2006 in Police
Station Vijay Nagar at the behest of Rajender Kuntal-respon-
dent, Security Guard of the institution, ui:ider Sections 452/323/
336/504/506 and 427 IPC. The above-stated·cases pertained E
to the period when the appellants were students and studying
MBBS Course in the College. The trial of the said cases at
present is at initial stage and further proceedings thereof are
stayed by this Court. The record would reveal that during the
investigation of Case Crime No. 412/2005 for offences punish- F
able under Sections 453, 323, 504, 506 IPC, the appellants
were arrested by the police on 15.01.2006 from their house
and were lodged in jail. Their bail applications were adjourned
four times by the learned Magistrate, who had called for case
diary and medical reports, which the prosecution did not pro- G
duce. It was only on the adjourned date, i.e. 18.01.2006 when
written medical report of doctor from Batra Hospital, New Delhi,
was filed before the learned Magistrate reporting some injuries
have received by complainant Rajender Kuntal and on the.ba-
sis of the said medical report, Section 308 IPC came to be H
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 9 S.C.R.
A added in the said Crime Case. The learned Magistrate re-
jected the bail application of the second appellant in that case.
The second appellant filed a bail application before the learned
Sessions Judge on 21.01.2006 which was adjourned to
31.01.2006 on that date the second appellant could be released
B on bail. The first respondent-State of U.P. has filed with their
affidavit translated true copies of apology letters dated
13.04.2004 and 02.05.2004 respectively said to have been
written by the appellants and addressed to the SHO, Vijay Nagar
P.S., Ghaziabad, the contents whereof read as under:-
C "Tomorrow morning 9am, myself and my daughter Monica
Kumar and Manish Kumar will go to SP City office. So we
won't go to the Mess of Santosh Medica College and we
won't abuse any employee. We apologize for the quarrel
happened today evening in the Mess with Mr.
D Krishanmoorthy.
Sci/-
Monica Kumar
Sd/-
E Manish Kumar
Sd/-
Savitri
K-8 Sector 12,
F Pratap Vihar
Dt. 13.04.04
Sd/-
G. Krishnamoorthy
G Ort. 13.04.04
Sd/-
R. Manikandan
H Dt. 13.04.04"
DR. MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U. P. 971
& ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J]
"SO, Vijay Nagar Police Station, A
Ghaziabad.
Ref.
From today onwards we won't stand in front of the police
8
car. Neither open our lights.
I am sorry for misconduct today.
Sd/-
Monica Kumar c
Dt. 2-5-2004
Sd/-
D
Manish Kumar
Dt. 2-5-2004"
34. The entire details of the facts of the present case do
indicate that the appellants during their study of MBBS Course E
had some problems with the second respondent; some staff of
the College and the then SHO of P.S. Vijay Nagar, whose daugh-
ter was also studying in the same College. The record would
reveal that both the appellants being NRI candidates have un-
dergone physical and mental agony and torture during their stu-
; dents' career in pursuing the MBBS course. They had spent F
most of their precious time in litigation in the courts fighting for
their genuine and legitimate claims. They may be lacking in some
indiscipline activities in the College for which they have been
facing criminal proceedings for the past about 3 years. Look-
ing to the entire backdrop of the peculiar facts of countless inci- G
dents having faced by the appellants during their primary life as
MBBS students and the nature of the offences alleged against
them in the above mentioned crime cases lodged by Mrs. Indra
Mohini Sharma and Rajender Kuntal in Police Station Vijay
Nagar, Ghaziabad and allegations and counter allegations in H
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.
A various complaints made by the parties against each other and
coupled with the tenor and contents of the apology tendered by
the appellants, we are of the view that it is a fit case where we
should exercise our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Consti-
tution of India. We are conscious of the well-settled law laid
B down by this Court in the above referred decisions and many
more that in case of persons against whom prima facie case is
).
made out and charge sheet is filed in the competent court, it is
that court which will then deal with the case on merits in accor-
dance with law and the High Court should not except in extraor-
C dinary circumstances exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. so as to quash the prosecution proceedings after they
have been lodged.
35. Under Article 142 of the Constitution this Court in ex-
ercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such
D order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause'
or 'matter' pending before it. The expression "cause" or "mat-
ter" would include any proceeding pending in court and it would
cover almost every kind of proceeding in court including civil or
criminal. Though there is no provision like Section 482 of the
E Criminal Procedure Code conferring express power on the Su-
preme Court to quash or set aside any criminal proceedings
pending before a criminal court to prevent abuse of process of
the court, but the inherent power of this Court under Article 142
coupled with the plenary and residuary powers under Articles
F 32 and 136 embraces power to quash criminal proceedings •.
pending before any court to do complete justice in the matter
before this Court. If the court is satisfied that the proceedings
in a criminal case are being utilised for obliq,ue purposes or if
the same are continued on manufactured and false evidence
G or if no case is made out on the admitted facts, it would be in
the ends of justice to set aside or quash the criminal proceed-
ings. Once this Court is satisfied that the criminal proceedings
amount to abuse of process of court, it would quash such pro-
ceedings to ensure justice. This Court's power under Article
142(1) to do "complete justice" is entirely of different level and
H
DR. MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U. P. 973
& ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
of a different quality. What would be the need of "complete jus- A
tice" in a cause or matter would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case and while exercising that power
the Court would take into consideration the express provisions
of a substantive statute. Any prohibition or restriction contained
in ordinary laws cannot act as a limitation on the constitutional B
power of this Court. Once this Court has seisin of a cause or
matter before it, it has power to issue any order or direction to
do "complete justice" in the matter.
36. While considering the nature and ambit of its own
power under this Article, this Court observed that it was advis- c
able to leave its power undefined and uncatalogued so that it
remains elastic enough to be molded to suit the given situation;
even where no alternative remedy is efficacious due to lapse of
time. [see Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construe-
tion Co. (P) Ltd. [(1996) 4 SCC 622] relying on Re: Vinay D
Chandra Mishra (1995) 2 SCC 584 and Kera/a State Electric-
ity Board v. Kurien E. Kalathil (2000) 6 SCC 293). The power
to do complete justice under this Article is, in a way, corrective
power, which gives preference to equity over law It is a residu-
ary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers E
specially conferred by the statutes to do complete justice be-
tween the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It
is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice.
(emphasis supplied)
.J F
37. In this view of the matter, in order to do complete jus-
tice to the parties in the backdrop of the peculiar facts of this
case and other circumstances noticed hereinbefore and also
taking into consideration the future career of the appellants who
by this time might have joined the noble medical profession
G
and owing to the reasons and observations above stated, this
appeal is allowed as a result thereof the order of the High Court
~ impugned in this appeal is set aside subject to the directions
contained herein.
38. Mr. K. K. Venugopal and Mr. P. P. Rao at one stage of H
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.
A the hearing very fairly suggested that keeping in view the rela- )
tionship of a teacher and taught and having regard to the pecu-
liar facts and circumstances of the case, the concerned respon-
dents would be satisfied if an apology is tendered and some
amount of compensation is awarded in favour of the third re-
B spondents-informants of Crime No.412 of 2005 and of Crime
No.21 of 2006.
~
39. We, having regard to the peculiar facts and circum-
stances of this case, are of the opinion that it is a fit case where
we should exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article
c 142 of the Constitution of India so as to bring the dispute be-
tween the parties to an end. We, however, are of the opinion
that as the appellants, at the relevant time, were students, no
amount of compensation be directed to be paid. They must,
however, file a written apology in the courts where the proceed-
D ings are pending.
40. Consequently, criminal proceedings arising out of Case
Crime No. 412/2005 registered at the behest of Dr. Indra Mohini
Sharma under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 and 427 IPC and
proceedings of Case Crime No. 21/2006 under Sections 452,
E 323, 336, 504, 506 and 427 IPC filed by Rajender Kuntal at
Police Station Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad and charges said to
have been framed by the trial court based upon the above-said
criminal cases against the appellants shall also stand quashed.
F 41. Before parting with this judgment, we make it clear •
that any observations made by us in this judgment may not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the genuineness, au-
thenticity, validity and legality of the allegations and counter al-
legations levelled by the parties against each other in different
proceedings and we have closed the proceedings of the above-
G
mentioned Fl Rs initiated against the appellants mainly in exer-
cise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution. i
R.P. Appeals Disposed of.
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Section 482 CrPC"Sign in to search