MANOJ MAHAVIR PRASAD KHAITANversusRAM GOPAL PODDAR AND ANR.

                      [2010] 12 S.C.R. 289


           MANOJ MAHAVIR PRASAD KHAITAN                               A
                                v.
              RAM GOPAL PODDAR AND ANR.
             (Criminal Appeal No. 1973 of 2010)

                      OCTOBER 8, 2010
                                                                      B
     [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: .

       s. 482 - Quashing of proceedings - Pursuant to a dowry         C
case filed against the complainant by his daughter-in-law, a
raid was conducted in his house by police accompanied by
accused who was brother of his daughter-in-law - Thereafter,
complaint filed alleging that the accused forced the police
officers to search cupboards for seizing the passporl of his
sister and in the absence of complainant stole two gold               D
bangles - On the basis of the complaint and verification
statement of the complainant, magistrate took cognizance of
offence punishable u/s.379 /PC - Revision filed by accused
but withdrawn later- Petition uls.482 filed by accused- High
Courl dismissed the petition holding that it was powerless and        E
the only remedy available with the accused was to again go
before the revisional courl and get the matter restored - On
appeal, held: The complaint deserved to be quashed
because prima facie it was absurd and there was a whole lack
of the bona fides on the parl of the complainant - High Courl         F
ought to have applied its mind to the fact situation - The
complaint was wholly covered by the category (7) of the
illustrative parameters enumerated in Bhajan Lat's case -
High Courl is invested with the tremendous powers u/s. 482
Cr. P. C. to pass any order in the interest of justice - Therefore,   G
it should have looked into the a/legations with open mind and
passed order in the interest of justice.
     s. 482 - Scope of - Held: s. 482 is a guarantee against
                               289                                    H
    290      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A injustice - High Court while exercising its jurisdiction u/s. 482
    could pass any order in the interest of justice - This power is
    available only to the High Court in contradistinction to the
    power of Sessions Judge uls. 397.
       The sister of the appellant was allegedly harassed by
8 her in-laws for dowry. A complaint was filed by her under
  Section 498-A IPC against respondent no.1 who was her
  father-in-law. Respondent no.1 was arrested. The next
  day, he was released on bail. In pursuance of the said
  complaint, the police officers went to the matrimonial
C home of appellant's sister for investigation. The appellant
  was also present there. The police conducted a raid in
  her matrimonial/home on 14.7.2004. On 17.7.2004, a
  written complaint was filed by respondent no.1 alleging
  that the appellant had stolen some gold ornaments
D during that raid. In the verification statement recorded by
  respondent No. 1, he had stated that the appellant had
  come to his house with the police officers in connection
  with the criminal prosecution instituted by his sister and
  forced the police officers to take search of the cupboards
E for seizing the passport of his sister. The appellant asked
  respondent no. 1 for the key of the cupboard and opened
  the cupboard and in the absence of respondent no. 1,
  stole two gold bangles weighing 60 grams. The appellant/
  accused locked the cupboard and handed over the keys
F to the respondent no. 1 who kept the same in his pocket
  and thereafter, he was arrested and taken to Rajasthan.
  On that basis, it was stated that it was the appellant/
  accused alone who had stolen the gold bangles, which
  fact probably came to the notice of respondent No. 1 only
G after coming back to his house. On the basis of the
  complaint and the verification statement of respondent
  no. 1, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable
  under Section 379 IPC and the process was issued. He
  then filed revision application challenging the issuance
H of process. However, he withdrew the same later. The
MANOJ MAHAVIR PRASAD KHAITAN v. RAM GOPAL 291
            PODDAR AND ANR.
appellant filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.             A
challenging the whole proceedings. The High Court,
however, dismissed his petition holding that the only
remedy left for the appellant was to go again before the
Sessions Judge and get the matter restored. The instant
appeal was filed challenging the order of the High Court.      B
     Allowing the appeal, the Court
       HELD: 1.1. The only material on the basis of which
 the Magistrate issued the summons was the complaint
 and the verification statement. There were .no other          c
 allegations. On the face of it, the allegations were absurd
 and without any basis. The complaint was .liable -to be
 quashed because the complainant/respondent no. 1
 wholly-lack the bona tides in filing such complaint which
 was .absurd. It is absurd to think that the appellant who     D
 was present with the police party would venture to
 pocket the bangles in their presence. Further, .admittedly,
 after locking the locker, the keys were handed .over to
 respondent no. 1. Neither is it known nor has it been
 made clear as to when respondent no. 1 opened the
                                                               E
 locker again to find that the two gold bangles were stolen.
 Be that as it may, the very look of the complaint is
/enough to convince one about the absurdity of the
 allegations. When the complaint is seen in the backdrop
 of the prosecution of respondent no. 1 for offences under
 Section 498 IPC ar.d the allied offences, the absurdity       F
 becomes all the more prominent. Again there ·is ·no
 complaint against the two accompanying police officers.
 They were not made accused in the complaint. The
 complaint was obviously with the indirect motive for
 hounding the appellant who was none else -but the             G
 brother of the daughter-in-law of respondent no. 1 who
 had started the criminal proceedings. Where on .the face
 of it the absurd charges are levelled and there is a whole
 lack of the· bona tides of the complainant/respondent
 no.1, there would be no fetter in using the powers under      H
   292     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 9, 10] [296-C-H; 297-A-C]
      1.2. In the impugned judgment, the High Court had
  found itself to be powerless in view of the withdrawal of
  the criminal revision and had advised the parties to go
  back to the revisional Court and get it restored. The High
8 Court was not justified in advising the appellant to go
  back to the Sessions Judge and to get the criminal
  revision revived without going into the question whether
  such revision could be revived in law or not. The High
  Court was not powerless. The· High Court itself was
C exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
  where it could pass any order in the interest of justice.
  This power was available only to the High Court in
  contradistinction to the Sessions Judge who was only
  entertaining the revision application of the appellant
D under Section 397 Cr.P.C. The High Court should have,
  therefore, applied its mind to the fact situation. It should
  have been realized that the complaint was wholly covered
  by category (7) of the illustrative parameters in the
  *Bhajan Lat's case. [Para 11] [297-D-G]
E
       *State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992
  Supp. (1) sec 335 - relied on.
       1.3. When the criminal Court looks into the complaint,
  it has to do so with the open mind. True it is that, that is
F not the stage for finding out the truth or otherwise in the
  allegations; but where the allegations themselves are so
  absurd that no reasonable man would accept the same,
  the High Court could not have thrown its arms in the air
  and expressed its inability to do anything in the matter.
G Section 482 Cr.P.C. is a guarantee against injustice. The
  High Court is invested with the tremendous powers
  thereunder to pass any order in the interest of justice.
  Therefore, this would have been a proper case for the
  High Court to look into the allegations with the openness
H and then to decide whether to pass any order in the
· MANOJ MAHAVIR PRASAD KHAITAN v. RAM GOPAL 293
              PODDAR AND ANR.
interests of justice. This was a case where the High Court           A
ought to have used its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In that view, the order of the High Court is set aside and
the criminal proceedings started by respondent no. 1 are
quashed. [Paras 11, 12] [298-C-G]

                       Case Law Reference:                           B

     1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335         relied on       Paras 10, 11
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1973 of 2010.
                                                                     c
     From the Judgment & Order dated 30.08.2007 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Application No. 2120
of 2007.
     D.K. Thakur, D. Jha, Dr. V.P. Appan for the Appellant.
                                                                     D
    Shobha, Mohinder Pal Thakur, Arun Lal for the
Respondents.
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
     V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Leave granted.
                                                                     E
     2. This judgment will also dispose of the Transfer Petition
beiilg T.P. (Crl.) No. 259/2008 filed on behalf of Smt. Rekha
Kailash Poddar who is the daughter-in-law of Ram Gopal
Poddar, respondent No. 1 herein.
     3. The facts are very peculiar. Smt. Rekha Poddar who is        F
the daughter-in-law of the respondent No. 1 herein, is also the
sister of the appellant herein. After the marriage allegedly she
was harassed by her in-laws for dowry. Sh~. therefore,
proceeded to file a complaint for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with          G
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against Ram Gopal
Poddar, respondent No. 1 herein, who is her father-in-law. The
respondent No. 1 was arrested for those offences on 15.7.2004
and was released on bail on th'e next day i.e. 16.7.2004. In
pursuance of this complaint, the police officers from Nerul Police   H
    294      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A   Station and also from Rajasthan had gone to the matrimonial
    home at Mumbai for investigation, with whom the present
    appellant was also present. The police conducted a raid at the
    matrimonial house on 14.7.2004 when the appellant herein was
    also present. They probably wanted to seize the passport of the
s   sister of the appellant.
       4. On 17. 7 .2004, a written complaint came to be filed in
  Nerul Police Station alleging that the appellant had stolen some
  gold ornaments during that raid. However, the police did not take
  the cognizance of that complaint. A criminal complaint, therefore,
C came to be filed after about six months i.e. on 17.3.2005 in the
  Court of 1st Class Judicial Magistrate at Vashi for the offence
  punishable under Section 379 IPC against the appellant alone.
  The cognizance was taken of this complaint on 2.4.2005 for the
  offence punishable under Section 379 IPC and process came
D to be issued.
         5. The appellant, therefore, challenged the order issuing
    process by way of a Criminal Revision Application dated
    5.7.2006 before the Sessions Judge at Thane. This Criminal
    Revision Application, however, was withdrawn on 7.5.2007,
E   though the withdrawal application was opposed by the
    complainant-respondent. According to the appellant, this was
    done without his knowledge or consent and he had not put his
    signatures on the withdrawal application. By order dated
    7.5.2007, the Sessions Judge permitted withdrawal.
F
        6. The appellant, therefore, moved Bombay High Court by
  way of a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure
  Code (Cr.P.C.), challenging the whole proceedings. He also
  proceeded to file a complaint against his lawyers in the Bar
G Council of Maharashtra for misconduct. The High Court,
  however, dismissed his petition holding that the only remedy left
  for the appellant was to again go before the Sessions Judge and
  get the matter restored. It is this judgment of the High Court which
  is sought to be challenged before us by way of the present
H appeal.
MANOJ MAHAVIR PRASAD KHAITAN v. RAM GOPAL 295
    PODDAR AND ANR. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
      7. Indisputably, there was a background against the A
complaint filed involving the present appellant and that was the
prosecution by the daughter-in-law of respondent No. 1 herein
who was also the sister of the appellant herein. There can be no
dispute that in the complaint there were allegations made of the
theft of two gold bangles (Patli) weighing about 60 grams. We B
have also seen the verification statement recorded by Ram Gopal
Poddar, respondent No. 1, wherein he has stated that it was the
accused (appellant herein) who accompanied ASI Shri Gupta
and Hawaldar Jaiprakash Singh from Nerul Police Station. It is
admitted that these police officers and the appellant/accused had      c
come to the house of Ram Gopal Poddar, respondent No. 1 in
connection with the criminal prosecution instituted by the
daughter-in-law of Ram Gopal Poddar, respondent No. 1, who
was the sister of the accused/appellant. It is then stated that the
accused/appellant forced ASI Shri Gupta to take search of D
cupboards for seizing the passport of Smt. Rekha Poddar,
daughter-in-law of respondent No. 1. The appellant asked
respondent No. 1 for key of cupboard and opened the cupboard
and in the absence of Ram Gopal Poddar, respondent No. 1,
"they" stole two gold bangles weighing 60 grams. Therefore, it E
was obvious that the criminal complaint was in retaliation of the
criminal prosecution which was being faced by the respondent
No. 1 herein. It was on the basis of the complaint and the
verification statement of the complainant/respondent No. 1 alone
that the Judicial Magistrate, Vashi took cognizance and issued
summons.                                                            F

      8. It is undoubtedly true that the appellant herein challenged
it by way of a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Thane
and·very. significantly, the said revision came to be withdrawn.
There does not appear to be any reason for such sudden and             G
inexplicable withdrawal. We have seen the reply to the revision
filed by Ram Gopal Poddar, respondent No. 1. From there, it
becomes apparent that the same role is ascribed and it is
admitted therein that the passport was seized by the police
officer. It is also suggested that thereafter, the appellant/accused   H
    296      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A   locked the cupboard and handed over the keys to the respondent
    No. 1 who kept the same in his pocket and thereafter, he was
    arrested and taken to Rajasthan. It is then suggested that key
    alongwith other things were handed over to the lawyer of the
    respondent No. 1. On this basis, it is suggested that it was the
B   appellant/accused alone who had stolen the gold bangles, which
    fact probably came to the notice of the respondent No. 1 only
    after coming back to Bombay.
          9. The only material on the basis of which the Magistrate
    issued the summons was the complaint and the verification
C   statement. Beyond the allegations which we have already
    mentioned, there are no other allegations. We feel on the face
    of it the allegations were absurd and without any basis. It is
    absurd to think that the appellant herein who was present with
    the police party (2 in No.) would venture to pocket the bangles in
D   their presence. Further, admittedly, after locking the locker, the
    keys were handed over to the respondent No. 1. Neither is it
    known nor has it been made clear as to when the respondent
    No. 1 opened the locker again to find that the two gold bangles
    were stolen. Be that as it may, the very look of the complaint is
E   enough to convince one about the absurdity of the allegations.
    When the complaint is seen on the backdrop of the prosecution
    Of the respondent No. 1 for offences under Section 498 IPC and
    the allied offences, the absurdity becomes all the more
    prominent. Again there is no complaint against the two
F   accompanying police officers. They have not been made
    9ccused in the complaint. There can be no doubt, therefore, that
    the complaint wholly lacks the bona fides and it was obviously
    with the indirect motive for hounding the appellant who was none
    else but the brother of the daughter-in-law of respondent No. 1
G   who had started the criminal proceedings.
         10. The learned Coun.sel for the appellant is, therefore, right
    in contending that the complaint had to be quashed, firstly,
    because it was absurd and secondly, because the complainant/
    respondent No. 1 wholly lack the bona fides in filing such
H   complaint which was absurd. The learned Counsel for the
 MANOJ MAHAVIR PRASAD KHAITAN v. RAM GOPAL297
     PODDAR AND ANR. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
·respondent No. 1 vehemently argued that at this stage, what was       A
 to be seen was only the contents of the complaint and if there
 appeared the basic contentions indicating committing of crime
 by the appellant/accused, then the Courts would not interfere with
 the same and leave the parties to lead evidence during the
 ensuing trial, rely!ng on the oft-quoted decision in State of         B
 Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp. (1) SCC
 335]. There can be no dispute about the law laid down in that
 case. However, where on the face of it the absurd charges are
 levelled and there is a whole lack of the bona fides of the
·complainant/respondent No.1, in our opinion, there would be no        c
 fetter in using the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
      11. It was pointed out that the criminal revision against the
issuance of summons was withdrawn. We were, therefore, taken
to the High Court's judgment, where the High Court has found
itself to be powerless in view of the withdrawal of the criminal       D
revision and had advised the parties to go back to the revisional
Court and get it restored. We do not think that the High Court
was justified in advising the appellant to go back to the Sessions
Judge and to get the criminal revision revived without going into
the question whether such revision could have been revived in          E
law or not. We observe that the High Court was not powerless.
The High Court itself was exercising its jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C., where the High Court could pass any order in the
interests of justice. This power was available only to the High
Court in contradistinction to the Sessions Judge who was only          F
entertaining the revision application of the appellant under
Section 397 Cr.P.C. The High Court should have, therefore,
applied its mind to the fact situation. It should have been realized
that the complaint was wholly covered under the 7th circumstance
in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors.
(cited supra), which is as under:-                                     G
             "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      H
    298      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010) 12 S.C.R.


A                      accused and with a view to spite him due to ·
                       private and personal grudge."
         It was also covered under 3rd circumstance in the case of
    State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (cited supra),
    which suggests:-
B                "3.   Where the uncontroverted allegations made
                       in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
                       collected in support of the same do not
                       disclose the commission of any offence and
                       make out a case against the accused."
c
         We reiterate that when the criminal Court looks into the
    complaint, it has to do so with the open mind. True it is that that
    is not the stage for finding out the truth or otherwise in the
    allegations; but where the allegations themselves are so absurd
0   that no reasonable man would accept the same. the High Court
    could not have thrown its arms in the air and expressed its
    inability to do anything in the matter. Section 482 Cr.P.C. is a
    guarantee against injustice. The High Court is invested with the
    tremendous powers thereunder to pass any order in the interest
E   of justice. Therefore, this would have been a proper case for the
    High Court to look into the allegations with the openness and then
    to decide whether to pass any order in the interests of justice. In
    our opinion, this was a case where the High Court ought to have
    used its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
F         12. In view of the fact, we ordinarily would have sent the
    matter back to the High Court, but there is no point now in
    remanding the matter back to the High Court in view of the
    pendency of this matter for last six years. In that view, we allow
    this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and quash the
G   criminal proceedings started by the respondent No. 1 vide
    criminal case No. 194 of 2005.
        13. In view of this order, it will not be necessary to pass any
    order in the transfer petition which seeks the transfer of the very
    complaint which we have quashed herein.
H D.G.                                               Appeal allowed.