Holding

The Supreme Court held that the FIR and ensuing criminal proceedings were an abuse of process as the dispute was purely civil, and therefore quashed the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

Summary

The Sanatan Dharma Pratinidhi Sabha cancelled a General Power of Attorney and sold a portion of its land after the contractor, Himmat Rai Ahuja, allegedly failed to pay the balance price. The contractor filed a criminal complaint alleging cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy under Sections 420, 467 and 120B IPC, leading to the issuance of non‑bailable warrants against the Sabha’s office‑bearers. The respondents also filed a civil suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed, so the dispute over title and demarcation of the land was pending in a civil court. The appellants prayed to quash the FIR and the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC, arguing that the matter was purely civil and the FIR did not disclose any cognizable offence. The Supreme Court held that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not prima facie constitute the offences alleged and that the criminal prosecution was an abuse of process, warranting the exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s order and quashed all criminal proceedings emanating from the FIR, also cautioning on the indiscriminate issuance of non‑bailable warrants.

Issues considered

The applicability of Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings where the dispute is civil in nature
Whether the FIR under Sections 420, 467 and 120B IPC prima facie discloses an offence
Whether the issuance of non‑bailable warrants was justified in the circumstances
The scope and limits of the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482, s. 70
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 420, s. 467

Subjects

inherent jurisdictionSection 482 CrPCabuse of processnon‑bailable warrantcivil disputeland disputepower of attorneycheatingforgerycriminal prosecution

Judgment

y INDER MOHAN GOSWAMI AND ANR. A
v.
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ORS.

OCTOBER 9, 2007
B
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJ. R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND
DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.)

Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973:
c
s. 482-lnherent powers of High Court-Scope and ambit of-
Dispute of civil nature between parties emanatingfrom cancellation
of General Power ofAttorney and termination ofagreement to sell-
Civil suit pending in court-On complaint, an FIR registered and
criminal proceedings initiated-Non-bailable warrants issued-High D
Court declining to quash criminal proceedings-HELD: Dispute being
purely of civil nature and civil suit of complainants pending in court
of competent jurisdiction, initiation of criminal proceedings by them
is clearly an abuse ofprocess ofCourt-Judicial Magistrate, without
properly comprehending the nature of controversy involved and
without exhausting the available remedies issued non-bailable E
warrants disregarding the settled legal position-Ifany abuse ofprocess
leading to injustice is brought to notice of Court, then Court would
be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in
absence of specific provision in Statute-Judgment of High Court in
declining to exercise its inherent power has led to grave miscarriage F
ofjustice-All proceeding emanating.from FIR shall stand quashed-
Administration ofcriminal justice-Inherent powers ofCourt-Penal
Code, 1860-ss. 4201467.

Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973: G
s. 70-Warrant ofarrest-Non-bailable warrants-Issuance of-
HELD: Issuance ofnon-bailable warrants involves interference with
personal liberty-Therefore, Courts have to be extremely careful in
issuing non-bailable warrants-Guidelines with regard to issuance of
847 H
..,.
848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R

A non-bailable warrants re iterated-Constitution ofIndia-Article 21-
Pract ice and Procedure.

A contract for construction of a bathing ghat on the bank of
river Ganga was entered into between Sanatan Dharma Pratinidhi
B Sabha and the contractor-respondent no. 3. On completion of the
contract, the ~resident of the Sabha executed a General Power of
Attorney in favour of the contractor in respect of 13.5 bighas out of
26 bighas of its land bearing khasra no. 140, in consideration of the
construction work carried out by respondent no. 3. The parties
executed a further agreement to sell the remaining 11.19 bighas of
C land ofkhasra no.140 to respondent no. 3, who paid earnest money
to the Sabha. According to the agreement, the balance amount was
to be paid by 31.3.1997 and time was essence of the contract. On
the death of the President of the Sabha, at the request ofrespondent
no. 3, a fresh General Power of Attorney in respect of the said 13.5
D bighas of land was executed in favour of his son-respondent no. 4.
It was the case of the Sabha that it came to know that respondents
no. 3 and 4, by misrepresentation and mism;ing the General Power
of Attorney, were attempting to sell the entire 26 bighas of land of
khasra no.140 as they executed 29 registered sale deeds in respect
E of13.5 bighas ofland and respondent no. 4 sold the remaining 11.19
bighas ofland to his father, respondent no. 3, by e:x.ecuting three sale
deeds. Thereupon the General Secretary of the Sabha, appellant no.
1, after sending a notice dated 30.4.2001 to respondents no. 3 and 4
cancelled the General Power of Attorney. In order to protect the
F interests of the Sabha, appellant no.1 sold the remaining 11.19 bighas
ofland ofkhasra no. 140 to a third person on 18.12.2002. Upon this,
respondent no. 3 filed complaints u/ss. 420, 467 ~nd 120;.B IPC, and
ultimately an FIR was registered. Meanwhile he also filed a civil
suit in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) for cancellation of the
G sale deed executed by the Sabha.
In the criminal proceedings the Judicial Magistrate issued non-
bailable warrants against the appellants and others, who approached
the High Court under s. 482 Cr.PC for quashing the criminal
proceedings against them. The High Court dismissed the petition.
H
INDERMOHANGOSWAMlv. STATE 849

y It was contended for the appellants that the controversy A
between the parties was purely of a civil nature since the entire issue
related to ascertaining the right and title with regard to the land in
dispute in respect of which a suit was pending before a competent
civil court, and, in the circumstances, the High Court gravely erred
in dismissing the application u/s 482 Cr.PC. B
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The court must ensure that criminal prosecution is
not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private
vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurize the accused. In the C
instant case, the issues relating to right and title with regard to the
land in dispute as also the issue of correct demarcation of land in
Khasra No. 140 are pending adjudication in a competent civil court.
The appellants who are office-bearers of a charitable organization,
namely, Sanatan Dharma Pratinidhi Sabha, in order to protect the D
interests of the Sabha, cancelled the Power of Attorney by executing
a registered deed of cancellation after giving notice to the Power of
Attorney holders. The appellants sold only that part of the land on
behalf of the Sabha for which an agreement to sell with the
complainants-respondents had already been terminated. The E
respondents' earnest money had been forfeited. All this was done
only after appellants had given the respondents due notice. The
veracity of the facts alleged by the appellants and the respondents
can only be ascertained on the basis of evidence and documents by
a civil court of competent jurisdiction. The dispute in question is F
purely of civil nature and respondent no. 3 has already instituted a
civil suit in the court of Civil Judge. In the facts and circumstances
of the case, initiating criminal proceedings by the respondents
against the appellants is clearly an abuse of the process of court.
[Paras 14, 21, 22 and 45] [857-E; 859-F, G, H; 860-A, B; 868-E) G

1.2. The authority of Court exists for the advancement of
justice. It is true that inherent powers 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 the section itself and in the decisions of this H
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A Court. But, if any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought y
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 24] (860-E, F]
State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., (1990] 3 SCR
B 259=(1992] Supp. 1 SCC 335, followed.
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, (1960) 3 SCR 388=AIR (1960)
SC 866; State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Ors., (1977] 3 SCR
113=(1977] 2 SCC 699; Chandrapal Singh & Ors. v. Maharaj Singh
C & Anr., (1982] 1 SCC 466; Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. v.
Sambhajirao ChandrojiraoAngre & Ors., (1988] 1SCC692; Roy VD.
v. State ofKera/a, [2000) 4 Supp. SCR 539=(2000] 8 SCC 590; Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Ors. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Anr.,
(2004] 5 Supp. SCR 790=(2005] 1 SCC 122 and Indian Oil
D Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors., (2006) 3 Supp. SCR
704=(2006) 6 sec 736, relied on.
JanataDalv.H S. Chowdhary& Ors., (1992) 1 Supp. SCR226=
(1992] 4 SCC 305 and G. Sagar Suri & Anr. v. State of UP & Ors.,
(2000] 1 SCR 417, [2000) 2 SCC 636, referred to.
E
Connellyv. DPP, (1964) AC 1254 and DPPv. Humphrys[1911]
AC 1, referred to.
2.1. In order to determine the question whether it is a case
where the allegations made in the first information report or the
F complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted
in entirety, do not make out a case against the accused under
Sections 420, 467 and 120B IPC, it becomes relevant to note the
nature of the offences alleged, the ingredients of the offences and
the averments made in the FIR/complaint. [Para 38) [866-B, CJ
G
2.2. In the instant case,_ the first information report has been
registered under sections 420/467/120B IPC and the allegations
· leveled therein are of (1) cheating and (2) forgery. To hold a person
guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had a fraudulent or
H dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere
INDERMOHANGOSWAMiv. STATE 851

y failure to subsequently keep a promise, one cannot presume that A
he all along had a culpable intention to break the promise from the
beginning. As regards s. 467 IPC, the basic ingredients of offence
are altogether missing even in the allegations of the FIR against the
appellants. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the appellants
can be legally prosecuted for an offence under Section 467 IPC. Even B
if all the averments made in the FIR are taken to be correct, the
case for prosecution under Sections 420 and 467 IPC is not made
y"
out against the appellants. Therefore, to prevent abuse of the process
and to secure the ends of justice, it becomes imperative to quash
the FIR and any further proceedings emanating therefrom. c
[Paras 39, 41, 43 and 44) (866-C, D; 867-D, E; 868-C, DJ

State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., (1990] 3 SCR
259=(1992) Supp.1SCC335, followed.

3.1. It has come to the notice of this Court that in many cases D
~

-i
bailable and non-bailable warrants are issued casually and
mechanically. In the instant case, the court without properly
comprehending the nature of controversy involved and without
exhausting the available remedies issued non-bailable warrants. The
trial court disregarded the settled legal position clearly enumerated E
in the decisions of this Court. [Para 46) [868-G; 869-A]

Omwati v. State of UP & Anr., [2004] 4 SCC 425 and State of
,.. UP. v. Poosu & Anr., [1976) 3SCR1005, [1976] 3SCC1, relied on.
\
3.2. The issuance of non-bailable warrants involves interference F
with personal liberty. The Court should try to maintain proper
balance between individual liberty and the interest of the public and
the State while issuing non-bailable warrants. Therefore, the courts
have to be extremely careful before issuing non-bailable warrants.
...-- There cannot be any straight-jacket formula for issuance of warrants
G
but as a general rule, unless an accused is charged with the
commission of an offence of a heinous crime and it is feared that he
is likely to tamper or destroy the evidence or is likely to evaJe the
process oflaw, issuance of non-bailable warrants should be avoided.

H
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A Non-bailable warrants should be issued to bring a person to court
when summons of bailable warrants would be unlikely to have the
desired result. This could be when: it is reasonable to believe that
the person will not voluntarily appear in court; or the police
authorities are unable to find the person to serve him with a summon;
B or it is considered that the person could harm someone if not placed
into custody immediately. As far as possible, if the court is of the
opinion that summons will suffice in getting the appearance of the
accused in the court, the summons or the bailable warrants should
be preferred. The warrants either bailable or non-bailable, have
c extremely serious consequences and ramifications that ensue on its
issuance, and, therefore, the same should never be issued without
proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind. The court
must very carefully examine whether the criminal complaint or FIR
has not been filed with an oblique motive.
D [Para 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56 and 57] (870-A, C-G; 871-B-D]
"The American Declaration ofIndependence 1776"; "French
Declaration of the Rights of Men and the Citizen 1789 "; and
"Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights and the International
Covenant of Civil and Political Rights 1966", referred to.
E
3.3. In complaint cases, at the first instance, the court should
direct serving of summons along with a copy of the complaint. If the
accused seems to be avoiding the summons, the court, in the second
. ·-<:
instance should issue bailable-warrants. In the third instance, when (
F the court is fully satisfied that the accused is avoiding the court's
proceedings intentionally, the process ofissuance of the non-bailable
warrants should be resorted to. Personal liberty is paramount,
therefore, courts are cautioned at the first and second instance to
refrain from issuing non-bailable warrants.
{Para 54] [870-H; 871-A, B]
G
4. The impugned judgment of the High Court in declining to
exercise its inherent power has led to grave miscarriage of justice.
On consideration of the totality of facts and circumstances of the
instant case, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court
H
INDERMOHANGOSWAMiv. STATE 853
[DALVEERBHANDARI, J.]
cannot be sustained, and is, therefore, set aside. In order to prevent A
abuse of the process of court and to othenvise secure the ends of
justice it is directed that all the proceedings emanating from the FIR
shall stand quashed. [Paras 57 and 59] (871-E, F, G]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. B
1392of2007.
From the Judgment and final Order dated 16.07.2004 of the High
Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Criminal Misc. Application No. 248
of2003.
Shanti Bhushan, Sr. Adv., Prashant Bhushan, Rohit Kumar Singh and C
Sumeet Sharma for the Appellants.
Jaspal Singh, Sr. Adv., J.K. Bhatia, B.N. Jha, R.K. Kapoor, M.K.
Verma, Anis Ahmad Khan and Anil Nag for the Respondents.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16th July, 2004
passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.248 of 2003 under E
section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) by
the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital. The appellants had to file an
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. because the Special Judicial
Magistrate, Rishikesh issued a non-bailable warrant against the appellants
on the basis of First Information Report under Sections 420/467 IPC filed
by the respondents. F
Basic Facts
3. In 1923, Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya founded Sanatan Dharma
Pratinidhi Sabha, Punjab (hereinafter referred as "the Sabha"). Some of
the objects of the Sabha are to open and maintain temples, dharamshalas, G
ashrams and to manage schools and colleges for the overall development
of children. Moreover, it seeks to open hospitals for the poor and to
. develop the physical and mental state of the youth etc. It is averred that
the Sabha from its inception is engaged in the work of uplifting backward
H
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.
'
A and downtrodden people and is a grass root organization in the field of
social.development. The Sabha was registered in the year 1949 under ""'r
the Societies Registration Act.
4. In order to develop a Ghat on the bank of river Ganga near
B Sapatrishi Ashram in Hardwar, the Sabha issued an advertisement in the
newspapers; it invited bids from the eligible civil contractors to construct
the Ghat in consideration of 13.5 Bighas (approximately) ofits land situated
in old Khasra No.140 and new Khasra Nos.61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67,
68 and part of 89, 90 in village Haripur Kalan, Rishikesh, Dehradun out
C of the total land of 26 Bighas owned by the Sabha. The Ghat was so
constructed by one Himmat Rai Ahuja, respondent no.3 herein, on behalf
of Mis Ahuja Builders.
5. On completion of the construction of the Ghat, the Sabha through
its President Pt. Mohan Lal Sharma executed a General Power of Attorney
D on 13 .12.1996 in favour of respondent no.3 in regard to the
abovementioned land measuring 13.5 Bighas (out of the total of26 Bighas
approximately). On the same date, a receipt of Rs.17,92,000/- lakhs
(approximately) was issued by the Sabha to respondent no.3 as an
adjustment towards the cost of construction of the Ghat for which the
E said land of 13.5 Bighas was transferred by executing a General Power
of Attorney dated 13.12.1996 in favour of respondent no. 3. On the same
day the parties executed an agreement to sell the remaining land situated ·
at Old Khasra No.140 and new Khasra No.89 in Village Haripur Kalan,
Rishikesh at the rate of Rs.1,35,000/'.' per Bigha (which was approx.
-..C:
F 11.19 Bighas). In pursuance to this, an earnest money of Rs.4,00,000/- I
was received by the Sabha from respondent no.3. As per the agreement,
respondent no.3 had to pay another Rs.1,00,000/- to the Sabha by
31.1.1997. This amount was paid by respondent no.3 on 21.3.1997 and
the balance amount of Rs. I 0, 10,650/- had to be paid by 31.3 .1997.
G 6. According to the appellants, time was the essence of the contract
and respondent no.3 had failed to pay the balance amount by
Rs.10,10,650/-. The Sabha had sent a legal notice dated 3.4.1999 (first
legal notice) to respondent no.3 to fulfill his contractual obligations under
the sale agreement and informing that ifhe failed to do so, the agreement
H
"(
INDERMOHANGOSWAMlv. STATE 855
[DALVEERBHANDARl,J.]
to sell would stand cancelled and the amount paid as earnest money would A
-( be forfeited. In reply to the said notice, respondent no.3 vide his reply
dated 5.5.1999 stated that he had not defaulted in payment of the
remaining amount. He stated in the reply that as per the agreement the
land had to be measured and that he was ready to pay the balance amount
once that was done. B
7. Pt. Mohan Lal Sharma, the President of the Sabha, expired on
30.8.19~9. On 5.1.2000, both the parties i.e. the representative of the
·/ Sabha and the representatives of Mis Ahuja Builders met at the site of
the disputed land in the presence of Patwari (Revenue Official). The land
of old .Khasra No.140 and new Khasra Nos.61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, c
68 and part of89, 90 was measured by the Patwari. The balance land,
after adjusting the land given in lieu of construction of the Ghat, came out
to be 11.19 Bighas. The total sale consideration for th.ls land worked out
to be Rs.15, 10,650/-. Respondent no.3 had already paid Rs.4,00,000/-
as earnest money out of this amount. He had paid a further sum of D
> Rs.1,00,000/- on 21.3.1997. On the request of respondent no.3, the
~
Sabha reduced the amount owed ofRs.1,50,000/- to him in view of the
existence of a passage on the said land. Out of the balance of
Rs.8,60,650/-, a further concession of Rs.60,650/- was given to
Respondent no.3. He thus had to pay the balance amount ofRs.8,00,000/ E
-. The said measurement sheet was endorsed by respondent nos.3 and 4
and the representatives of the Sabha on 19 .3 .2000.
8. The General Power of Attorney executed by Late Mohan Lal
;>\ Sharma, President of the Sabha, had ceased to be in effect after his death.
F
Therefore-, the need of a fresh power of attorney was felt and respondent
no.3 desired that the fresh Power of Attorney be executed in the name
of his son, Suresh Ahuja (respondent no.4 herein) for the very same 13.5
Bighas of land in regard to which earlier Power of Attorney dated
13 .12.1996 had been given. Accordingly, General Secretary of the Sabha,
G
r- appellant no. I herein, executed a fresh General Power of Attorney on
15. l.2000 in respect of 13 .5 Bighas ofland situated in part of Old .Khasra
No.140 (new Khasra Nos. 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 and part of
89, 90) in Village Haripur Kalan, Rishikesh, Dehradun, in favour of Suresh
Ahuja (respondent no.4) as per the request of respondent no.3.
H
'\-'
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R. ·

A 9. According to the appellants, the Sabha made several requests to
~,,....,
respondent nos.3 and 4 asking them to pay the balance amount of
Rs.8,00,000/-. However, despite repeated requests, the respondents failed
to do so.

B 10. The appellants submitted that the Sabha had learnt from reliable
sources and from the office of the Registrar of Properties that respondent
no.3, by misrepresentation and by misusing his General Power of Attorney
for the 13.5 Bighas of land, was attempting to sell the entire 26 Bighas of
the Sabha's land tc other parties and was executing sale deeds without "(
any right whatsoever in respect of the remaining 11.19 Bighas.' The
c appellants learnt that respondent no.4 had executed at least 29 registered
sale deeds consisting of 13.5 Bighas ofland in favour of various parties.
The Sabha also djscovered that 11.19 Bighas of land, for which there
was only an agreement to sell between respondent no.3 and the Sabha,
was also sold by respondent no.4 to his father (respondent no.3 herein)
D
by e)):ecuting three registered sale deeds. Such sales could not give any
title to respondent no.3. ~
)-

11. On 30.4.2001, appellant no.1 sent a legal notice (second notice)
to respondent nos.3 and 4 informing them that if the balance amount of
E Rs.8,00,000/- was not paid, he would have to cancel the General Power
of Attorney. No reply to the said notice was received from the respondents
nor was Rs.8,00,000/- paid. In these circumstances, appellant no. 1 (I.
M. Goswami) cancelled the power of attorney issued in favour of
respondent no.4 and informed respondent no. 4 accordingly. A public
--<;
F notice of the same was also published by the Sabha in a local newspaper I
"Amar Ujala", a Hindi daily on 25.10.2002. The notice informed the
general public about the cancellation of the General Power of Attorney
given to respondent no.4. According to the appellants, in order to protect
the interest of the Sabha, the remaining land of 11.19 Bighas of Khasra
G
No.140 was sold to one Sunil Kumar on "as is where is basis" on
18.12.2002. ·~

12. Having committed breach of his contractual obligations,
respondent no.3 filed a criminal complaint to the SHO of Raiwala,
Rishikesh police station on 23.4.2003 against the appellants and three
H other persons alleging that he had been cheated by the appellants in
IND ER MOHAN GOSWAMI v. STATE 857
[DALVEERBHANDARI,J.]
-( connivance with other persons by selling a portion of his land to a third A
party and by cancelling the General Power of Attorney. After examining
the matter, the SHO arrived at the conclusion that no cognizable offence
had been committed and the dispute in question was of civil nature for
which the civil remedy is available in law.
13. Respondent no.3 filed another complaint on the same day, i.e. B
23.4.2003, to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun and got the
"I" FIR registered against the appellant and three other persons. The allegation
of respondent no.3 was that the appellants in connivance with other
persons had sold the part of land situated in Old K.hasra No.140 and new
Khasra No.89 which had been transferred to them by way of General C
Power of Attorney. The FIR was registered on 23.4.2003 as Case No.26
of2003 under sections 420, 467 and 120-B IPC.
14. It may be pertinent to mention that on 27.5.2003, respondent
> no.3 filed a civil suit in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) against D
-; the Sabha bearing Original Suit No.302of2003 titled Himmat Rai Ahuja
v. Sanatan Dharam Pratinidhi Sabha. In this suit, respondent no.3
prayed for cancellation of sale deed executed by the Sabha in favour of
Sunil Kumar and for permanent injunction against the appellants herein
restraining them from interfering in his alleged property. Thus, the issues E
relating to ascertaining the right, title of the land in dispute and also the
issue of correct demarcation of land in K.hasra No.140 are pending
adjudication in a competent civil court.
'?\
15. On the basis of the FIR registered, the case was investigated by
the Sub-Inspector, Raiwala Police Station. Later on the investigation was F
transferred to Rishikesh Police Station. Thereafter, the investigation was
again transferred to Raiwala Police Station and a charge-sheet was filed
in the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh. .
r 16. Aggrieved by the filing of the false and incorrect charge-sheet in
the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh in Criminal Case G
No.1728 of 2003 titled State v. Inder Mohan Goswami & Ors., the
appellants filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.248 of2003 in
the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital under section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing the proceedings against them. The High Court was pleased to
H
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 10 S.C.R.

A pass the interim order on 22.10.2003 staying further proceedings. A reply
was filed on behalf of the State by Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma, SHO,
Raiwala Police Station, in which two points were raised:
1. That, appellant no. l has wrongly cancelled the General Power
of Attorney given to respondent no.4; and
B
2. That, appellant no.1 has wrongly and illegally executed the sale
deed of land comprising in Khasra No.140 (new Khasra
Nos.61 to 68, 89 and 90) without returning the earnest money
of respondent nos.3 and 4.
C 17. The High Court by order dated 16. 7.2004 dismissed the petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellants on the ground that the
records show that the allegations in the FIR constitute an offence as alleged
by the complainant. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special
leave.
[) -~
18. The appellants submitted that first appellant cancelled the power r-
of attorney by a registered cancellation deed after informing respondent
no.4. The cancellation was necessary to protect its interests because
respondent no.4 was selling the Sabha's land by misusing the power of
E attorney. The Sabha sold the land to Sunil Kumar only after respondent
nos.3 and 4 failed to fulfill their obligations under the contract and had
mala fide intention to grab the land without paying the balance amount.
Accordingly, the sale deeds executed by respondent no.4 in favour of -~
respondent no.3 were illegal. The appellants' cancelling the power of I
attorney and selling a part of the land to Sunil Kumar to protect the
F interests of the Sabha by no stretch of the imagination attracts ingredients
of the offences of sections 467, 420 and l 20B IPC. According to the
appellants, the entire issue relates to ascertaining the right, title of the land
in dispute and also the issue of correct demarcation of the land Khasra
No.140, all of which are pending adjudication before a competent civil ~
G court. The appellants contended that they filed a criminal miscellaneous
application under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR because no
offence under sections 467, 420 and 120B of the I.P.C. could be made
out. The controversy between the parties is purely of a civil nature. A
civil suit has already been filed and is pending adjudication. The appellants
H
INDERMOHANGOSWAMlv. STATE 859
[DALVEERBHANDARl,J.]
submitted that the High Court gravely erred in dismissing the application A
under section 482 Cr.P.C; whereas, according to the respondents, the
High Court was justified in declining to quash the FIR because of the
conduct of the appellants. In the counter-affidavit, it was also alleged that
the loss had not been suffered by the appellants but in fact it had been
suffered by the respondents. B
19. The appellants in the rejoinder submitted that the trial court was
not justified in taking cognizance of the matter when no prima facie case
was made out against the appellants. The trial court gravely erred in not
appreciating the complete facts of the case_ in the proper perspective. The C
trial court has not properly comprehended the complete investigation
reports, which were conducted by two different investigating officers. It
was pointed out that it was the respondents who had committed criminal
breach by purporting to sell that part of the land for which an agreement
to sell was procured, by misusing the Power of Attorney given to them
for some other part of the land. Respondent no.4 was clearly guilty of D
offences under sections 420 and 467 IPC and the appellants had also
filed a criminal complaint against respondent nos.3 and 4 before the
Special Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh under sections 1208/467/468/471
IPC. The criminal case was registered as Case No.1306of2003 titled
as JM Goswami v. Suresh Ahuja. The Special Judicial Magistrate vide E
order dated 12th May, 2005 had issued summons to respondent nos.3
and4.
20. The appellants submitted that in the impugnedjudgment, the High
Court had also disregarded the settled legal position crystallized by various F
judgments of this court and declined to quash the criminal proceedings
against the appellants.
21. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The
appellants who are office-bearers of a charitable organization, namely,
r
Sanatan Dharrna Pratinidhi Sabha, in order to protect the interests of the G
Sabha cancelled the Power of Attorney by executing a registered
Cancellation Deed after giving notice to the Power of Attorney holders.
The appellants sold only that part of the land to Sunil Kumar on behalf
of the Sabha for which an agreement to sell with the complainants
(respondents) had already been terminated. The respondent's earnest H
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 10 S.C.R.

A money had been forfeited. All of this was only done after appellants had
given respondents due notice.
22. The veracity of the facts alleged by the appellants and the
respondents can only be ascertained on the basis of evidence and
B documents by a civil court of competent jurisdiction. The dispute in
question is purely of civil nature and respondent no.3 has already instituted
a civil suit in the court of Civil Judge. In the facts and circumstances of
this case, initiating criminal proceedings by the respondents against the
appellants is clearly an abuse of the process of the court.
C Scope and ambit of courts' powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.

23. This court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and
ambit of courts' powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. Every High Court has
inherent power to act ex de bito justitiae to do real and substantial justice,
for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the
I) process of the court. Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be r.
exercised:
(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and
E
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
24. Inl1erent powers 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
F 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 justified in preventing injustice by invoking
inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute.
G Discussion of decided cases

25. Reference to the following cases would reveal that the courts
have consistently taken the view that they must use this extraordinary
power to prevent injustice and secure the ends of justice. The English
courts have also used inherent power to achieve the same objective. It is
H
INDERMOHANGOSWAMlv. STATE 861
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
generally agreed that the Crown Court has inherent power to protect its A
process from abuse. In Connelly v. DPP (1964) AC 1254, Lord Devlin
stated that where particular criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of
process, the court is empowered to refuse to allow the indictment to
proceed to trial. Lord Salmon in DPP v. Humphrys, (1977) AC 1
stressed the importance of the inherent power when he observed that it B
is only if the prosecution amounts to an abuse of the process of the court
and is oppressive and vexatious that the judge has the power to intervene.
He further mentioned that the court's power to prevent such abuse is of
great constitutional importance and should be jealously preserved.
26. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR (1960) SC 866, this C
court summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can
and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against
the institution or continuance of the proceedings; D
(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;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal
evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or E
manifestly fails to prove the charge.
27. 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. The court must be careful to see that its F
decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The
inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.
The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision
in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy; more so, when the
evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the G
issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they
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 extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the
H
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A proceedings at any stage.
28. This court in State of Karnataka, v. L. Muniswamy & Ors.,
[1977] 2 sec 699 observed that the wholesome power under section
482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes
B to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an
abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that
the proceeding ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested
'y,
with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a
salutary public purpose. A court proceeding ought not to be permitted to
degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The court
C observed in this case that ends ofjustice are higher than the end"! of mere
law though justice must 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.
D 29. In Chandrapal Singh & Ors. v. Maharaj Singh & Anr., [1982]
1 sec 466, in a landlord and tenant matter where criminal proceedings
had been initiated, this Court observed in para 1 at page 467 as under:-
"A frustrated landlord after having met his waterloo in the
hierarchy of civil courts, has further enmeshed the tenant in a
E frivolous criminal prosecution which prima facie appears to be an
abuse of the process oflaw. The facts when stated are so telling
that the further discussion may appear to be superfluous."
30. The court noticed that the tendency of perjury is very much on
F the increase. Unless the courts come down heavily upon such persons,
the whole judicial process would come to ridicule. The court also observed
that chagrined and :fiustrated litigants should not be pennitted to give vent
to their :fiustration by cheaply invoking jurisdiction of the criminal court.
31. This court in Madhavrao Jilrnjirao Scindia & Ors. v.
G Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors., [1988] 1 SCC 692 observed
in para 7 as under:
"7. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution
at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied
by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made
H
INDERMOHANGOSWAMiv. STATE 863
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.].

prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take A
1

into consideration any special features which appear in a particular
case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice
to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that
the court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where in
the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak B
and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing
a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into
consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding
even though it may be at a preliminary stage." ·
c
32. In State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., [1992]
Supp. 1 SCC 335, this court in the backdrop of interpretation of various
relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. 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 D
oflndia or the inherent powers under section 482 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 ofjustice. Thus, this court made it clear that
it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to E
give an exhaustive list to myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should
)I,
be exercised:
{ \
"( 1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or
the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and f
accepted in tl1eir entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers 6
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 FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do H
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 10 S.C.R.

A not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable
offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a
B
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground
c for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance
of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in
D the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with ma/a
fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
E ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a
view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
33. This court in Janata Dal v. H S. Chowdhary & Ors., (1992]
4 sec 305 observed thus: /~
F "132. The criminal courts are clothed with inherent power to make
such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. Such
power though unrestricted and undefined should not be capriciously
or arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised in appropriate
cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the
G 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 plentitude of the power requires great
caution in its exercise. Courts must be careful to see that its decision
in exercise of this power is based on sound principles."
H
INDERMOHANGOSWAMiv. STATE 865
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
34. In G. Sagar Suri & Anr. v. State of UP & Ors., (2000] 2 A
sec 636, this court observed that it is the duty and obligation of the
criminal court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing the process
particularly when matters are essentially of civil nature.
35. This court in Roy VD. v. State of Kera/a, [2000] 8 SCC 590
B
observed thus:-
"18. It is well settled that the power under section 482 Cr.P.C
has to be exercised by the High Court, inter alia, to prevent abuse
'~
of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. Where criminal proceedings are initiated based on illicit c
material collected on s~ch and arrest which are per se illegal and
vitiate not only a conviction and sentence based on such material
but also the trial itself, the proceedings cannot be allowed to go
on as it cannot but amount to abuse of the process of the court;
in such a case not quashing the proceedings would perpetuate D
abuse of the process of the court resulting in great hardship and
~
.., injustice to the accused. In our opinion, exercise of power under
section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings in a case like the one on
hand, would indeed secure the ends of justice."
36. This court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Ors. v. E
Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Anr., [2005] 1 SCC 122 observed thus:-
"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 F
' any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts
to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings
would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is
disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question
of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible
G
r to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has
alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations
are accepted in toto."

37. In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors., [2006]
H
866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A 6 SCC 736, this court again cautioned about a growing tendency in
business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. The
court noticed the prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time
consuming and do not adequately protect the interescs oflenders/creditors.
The court further observed that "any effort to settle civil disputes and
B claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure
through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged."
38. The question before us is - whether the case of the appellants
comes under any of the categories enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra)? y
Is it a case where the allegations made in the first information report or
C the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in
entirety, do not make out a case against the accused under Sections 420,
467 and 120B IPC? For determination of the question it becomes relevant
to note the nature of the· offences alleged against the appellants, the
ingredients of the offences and the averments made in the FIR/complaint.
D
39. In the instant case, the first information report has been registered
under sections 420/467/1208 IPC. The allegations leveled in the first
information report are of (1) cheating and (2) forgery.
Analysis of relevant provisions of law
E
40. Firstly, we shall deal with the section 420 IPC. Cheating is
defined in section 415 IPC and is punishable under section 420 IPC.
Section 415 is set out below:
"415. Cheating-Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently
F or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any
property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain
any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to
do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit ifhe
were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely
G to cause damage or harm to that person in body' mind, reputation
or property, is said to 'cheat'.
Explanation.-A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception
within the meaning of this section."
H
INDERMOHANGOSWAMiv. STATE 867
[DALVEERBHANDARl,J.]
Section 415 IPC thus requires - A
1. deception of any person.
2. (a) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person-
(i) to deliver any property to any person; or
(ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or B

(b) _intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do
anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so
deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause
damage or harm to that person in body mind, reputation or C
property.
41. On a reading of the aforesaid section, it is manifest that in the
definition there are two separate classes of acts which the person deceived
may be induced to do. In the first class of acts he may be induced
fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver property to any person. The second D
class of acts is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person
deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the
first class of cases, the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the
second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but need not be
fraudulent or dishonest. Therefore, it is the intention which is the gist of E
the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show
that he had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the
promise. From his mere failure to subsequently keep a promise, one cannot
presume that he all along had a culpable intention to break the promise
from the beginning. F
42. We shall now deal with the ingredients of section 467 IPC.
Section 467 IPC reads as under:
"467. Forgery ofvaluable security, will etc.-Whoever forges
a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or G
an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to
any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive
the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver
any money, moveable property, or valuable security, or any
document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging
H
868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 10 S.C.R. 'r
1

A the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery
of ~y moveable property or valuable security, shall be punished
with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable
to fine."
B 43. The following ingredients are essential for commission of the
offence under section 467 IPC:
1. the document in question so forged;
2. the accused who forged it.
c 3. the document is one of the kinds enumerated in the
aforementioned section.
The basic ingredients of offence under Section 467 are altogether missing
even in the allegations of the FIR against the appellants. Therefore, by no
D stretch of the imagination, the appellants can be legally prosecuted for an
offence under Section 467 IPC.
44. Even if all the averments made in the FIR are taken to be correct, ,...
the case for prosecution under sections 420 and 467 IPC is not made
out against the appellants. To prevent abuse of the process and to secure
E the ends ofjustice, it becomes imperative to quash the FIR and any further
proceedings emanating therefrom.
45. The court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as
an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an
F ulterior motive to pressure the accused. On analysis of the aforementioned ,/~
cases, we are of the opinion that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay
down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent
jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts under Section 482
Cr.P.C. though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with
caution and only when it is justified by the tests specifically laid down in
G the Statute itself and in the aforementioned cases. In view of the settled
legal position, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
46. Before parting with this appeal, we would like to discuss an issue
which is of great public importance, i.e., how and when warrants should
H
INDERMOHANGOSWAMlv. STATE 869
[DALVEERBHANDARl,J.]
be issued by the Court? It has come to our notice that in many cases that A
bailable and non-bailable warrants are issued casually and mechanically.
In the instant case, the court without properly comprehending the nature
of controversy involved and without exhausting the available remedies
issued non-bailable warrants. The trial court disregarded the settled legal.
position clearly enumerated in the following two cases. B
47. In Omwati v. State of UP & Anr., [2004] 4 SCC 425, this
court dealt with a rather unusual matter wherein the High Court.firstly
issued bailable warrants against the appellant and thereafter by issuing non-
bailable warrants_ put the complainant of the case behind bars without going
through the facts of the case. This Court observed that the unfortunate C
sequel of such unmindful orders has been that the appellant was taken
into custody and had to remain in jail for a few days, but without any
justification whatsoever. She suffered because facts of the case were not
considered in proper perspective before passing the orders. The court
also observed that some degree of care is supposed to be taken before D
issuing warrants.
48. In State of UP. V. Poosu & Anr., [1976] 3 sec 1 at para 13
page 5, the Court observed:
"Whether in the circumstances of the case, the attendance of E
the accused respondent can be best secured by issuing a bailable
warrant or non-bailable warrant, is a matter which rests entirely in
the discretion of the court. Although, the discretion is exercised
judiciously, it is not possible to computerize and reduce into
immutable formulae the diverse considerations on the basis of which p
this discretion is exercised. Broadly speaking, the court would take
into account the various factors such as the nature and seriousness
of the offence, the character of the evidence, circumstances peculiar
to the accused, possibility of his absconding, larger interest of the
r· public and the State. G
Personal liberty and the interest of the State
49. Civilized countries have recognized that liberty is tpe most
precious of all the human rights. The American Declaration of
Independence 1776, French Declaration of the Rights of Men and the H
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

.A Citizen 1789, Universal Declaration of Buman Rights and the International
Covenant of Civil and Political Rights 1966 all speak with.one voice -
liberty is the natural and inalienable right of every human being. Similarly,
.Article 21 of our Constitution proclaims that no one shall be deprived of
his liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.
B 50. The issuance of non-bailable warrants involves interference with
personal liberty. Arrest and imprisonment means deprivation of the most
precious right of an individual. Therefore, the courts have to be extremely ~
careful before issuing non-bailable warrants.
c 51. Just as liberty is precious for an individual so is the interest of
the society in maintaining law and order. Both are extremely important
for the survival of a civilized society. Sometimes in the larger interest of
the Public and the State it becomes absolutely imperative to curtail freedom
of an individual for a certain period, only then the non-bailable warrants
D should be issued.
When non-bailable warrants should be issued
52. Non-bailable warrant should be issued to bring a person to court
when summons of bailable warrants would be unlikely to have the desired
E result. This could be when:
* it is reasonable to believe that the person will not voluntarily
appear in court; or
* the police authorities are unable to find the person to serve
him with a summon; or
F
* it is considered that the person could harm someone if not
placed into custody immediately.
53. As far as possible, ifthe court is of the opinion that a summon
will suffice in getting the appearance of the accused in the court, the
G summon or the bailable warrants should be preferred. The warrants either
bailable or non-bailable should never be issued without proper scrutiny
of facts and complete application of mind, due to the extremely serious
consequences and ramifications which ensue on issuance of warrants. The
court must very carefully examine whether the Criminal Complaint or FIR
H has not been filed with an oblique motive.
INDERMOHANGOSWAMiv. STATE 871
[DALVEERBHANDARI,J.]
54. In complaint cases, at the first instance, the court should direct A
serving of the summons along with the copy of the complaint. If the
accused seem to be avoiding the summons, the court, in the second
instance should issue bailable-warrant. In the third instance, when the court
is fully satisfied that the accused is avoiding the court's proceeding
intentionally, the process of issuance of the non-bailable Warrant should B
be resorted to. Personal libe;ty is paran1ount, therefore, we caution courts
at the first and second instance to refrain from issuing non-bailable
warrants.
55. The power being discretionary must be exercised judiciously with
extreme care and caution. The court should properly balance both C
personal liberty and societal interest before issuing warrants. There cannot
be any straight-jacket formula for issuance of warrants but as a general
rule, unless an accused is charged with the commission of an offence of
a heinous crime and it is feared that he is likely to tamper or destroy the
evidence or is likely to evade the process of law, issuance of non-bailable
warrants should be avoided. D
-'i 56. The Court should try to maintain proper balance between
individual liberty and the interest of the public and the State while issuing
non-bailable warrant.
57. On consideration of the totality of facts and circumstances of
this case, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court cannot be E
sustained.
58. Needless to mention that the concerned civil court (where the
suit is pending) shall decide the suit without being influenced by any
observation made by us in this judgment regarding the merits of the civil
~ F
59. Reverting to the facts of this case, we are of the considered view
that the impugned judgment of the High Court in declining to exercise its
inherent power has led to grave miscarriage of justice. Consequently, we
set aside the impugned judgment and in order to prevent abuse of the
process of the court and to otherwise secure the ends of the justice we G
direct that all the proceedings emanating from the FIR shall stand quashed.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of
this case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
RP. Appeal disposed of.
H