P.S. MEHERHOMJIversusK.T. VIJAY KUMAR & ORS.

•                      [2014] 11 S.C.R. 51


                        P.S. MEHERHOMJI                        A
                                v.
                   K.T. VIJAY KUMAR & ORS.
               (Criminal Appeal No. 2211 of 2014)
                      OCTOBER 14, 2014
                                                               B
      [M.Y. EQBAL AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.]

         Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Power
    under - Object and Scope of - Held: s. 482 empowers the
    High Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse C
    of the process of court - But such power should be exercised
    only in abuse where the complaint does not disclose any
    offence or is vexatious or oppressive - High Court should not
    normally interfere with order taking cognizance of offence u/
    s. 499 /PC, if complaint is supported by statement of D
    complainant on oath and necessary ingredients of offence are
    disclosed - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 499.

        Dismissing the appeal, the Court

         HELD: 1. Judicial process should not be an .E
    instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The
    court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising
    discretion and should take all the relevant facts and
    circumstances into consideration before issuing process
    lest it would be an instrument in the hands of private F
    complainant as vendetta to harass the persons
    needlessly. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case
    is a serious matter and the order taking cognizance by the
    Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he
    has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law G
    applicable thereto. [Paras 12 and 13] [57-G-H; 58-A-8]

        2.1 Section 482 Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court to
    exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the
                               51                              H
A
    52      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 11 S.C.R.


    process of court and to quash the proceeding instituted
                                                                   •
    on complaint but such power could be exercised only in
    cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence
    or is vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in
    the complaint do not constitute the offence of which
B   cognizance is taken the Magistrate, it is open to the High
    Court to quash the same in exercise of power under
    Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Para 13] [58-8-C]

         2.2 The High Court should not normally interfere with
    the order taking cognizance of offence u/s. 499 IPC, if on
C   consideration of the allegations, the complaint is
    supported by a statement of the complainant 01n oath and
    the necessary ingredients of the offence are disclosed.
    In the facts of the case, the High Court rightly refused to
    quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of power u/
D   s. 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 14 and 22] [58-D-E; 64-C]

        Ohanalakshmi vs. R. Prasanna Kumar and Ors. 1990
    (Supp) SCC 686: 1989 Suppl. SCR 165; Chand Ohawan
    vs. Jawahar Lal and Ors. AIR 1992 SC 1379: 1992 (2)
E   SCR 837; Radhey Shyam Kemka vs. State of Bihar (1993)
    3 SCC 54 1993 (2) SCR 699; Mushtaq Ahmad vs. Mohd.
    Habibur Rehman Faizi and Ors. (1997) 7 SCC 441 - relied
    on.

         State of Maharashtra vs. Sayed Mohammad Masood &
F   Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 787: 2009 (12) SCR 275; Thermax
    Limited & Ors. vs. K. M. Johny & Ors. (2011) 13 SCC 412:
     2011 (14) SCR 154 ; Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs.
    Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre (1988) 1 SCC 692: 1988
    (2) SCR 930 - referred to.
G
                        Case Law Reference:
         2009 (12) SCR 275.      referred to          Para 11
         2011 (14) SCR 154       referred to          Para 11
H
•          P.S. MEHERHOMJI v. K.T. VIJAY KUMAR


        1988 (2) SCR 930           referred to           Para 11
                                                                 53


                                                                       A
        Suppl. SCR 165             relied on             Para 15
        1992 (2) SCR 837           relied on             Para 16
        1993 (2). SCR 699          relied on             Para 16       B
        (1997) 1 sec 441           relied on             Para 16

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 2211 of 2014.                  ·

        From the Judgment & Order dated 05.12.2009 in CRLP             C
    No. 3917/2007 3917/2007, of the High Court of Judicature at
    Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra
    Pradesh.

        Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sanjeeb Panigrahi, L. Nidhiram Sharma,       D
    Siddhartha Chowdhury for the Appellant.

        G.VR. Choudhary, K. Shivraj Chaudhuri, A. Chandra
    Sekhar, Guntur Prabhakar, (for D. Mahesh Babu) for the
    Respodents.
                                                                       E
        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted.

        2. This appeal arises out of an order dated 5.12.2009
                                                                       F
    passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in
    Criminal Petition No.3917 of 2007, whereby the High Court
    dismissed the petition preferred by the appellant and
    respondent no.4 herein, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing
    proceedings in C.F.No.2425 of 2007 on the file of 1st Additional
    Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada relating to offence      G
    under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC').
    Respondent no.4 (Rallies India Ltd.) and the Appellant,
    Company Secretary of M/s. Rallies India Ltd. are accused nos.1
    and 2 in the aforesaid proceedings.
                                                                       H
A
    54   .   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014) 11 S.C.R.


           3. The brief facts of the case are that K.T. Vijay Kumar -
                                                                        •
    Respondent no.1 joined Mis. Rallis India Ltd.-Respondent no.4,
    as Sales Representative and later promoted to different posts.
    The Company entrusted various powers to him including the
    powers to recommend various companies or firms for
B dealership to sell company's product. Taking advantage of the
    powers entrusted by the Company, Respondent no.1 along with
    few of his relatives and friends clandesti.nely formed two
    partnership firms and he appointed them as Company's
    dealers to misappropriate funds by way of diverting goods from
c   Mis. Rallies India. It is alleged that upon enquiry, it was found
    that huge amount of stocks were routed clandestinely through
    the said two firms and Respondent no. 1. - Vijay Kumar along
    with his associates defrauded the Company Mis. Rallies India.
    It is further alleged that Vijay Kumar - Respondent no.1 floated
    a Company called Chemical Biotech Ltd. with his wife and
0
    relatives at Vijayawada while he was serving with Mis. Rallies
    India Ltd. and his Company was dealing, producing and trading
    in the same products as manufactured by Respondent no.4
    company - Mis. Rallies India. When all the facts came to light,
  · he resigned from Mis. Rallies India-Respondent No.4.
E
           4. Respondent no.1 made two firms Mis. Sri Laxmi
    Agencies and Mis. Vaishnavi Chemicals through their partners
    to enter into and execute a Memorandum of Understanding
    dated 31.3.2004 with Respondent No.4 Company (Mis. Rallies)
F wherein they admitted their entire liability of Rs.7,94,70,5171-
    payable to Mis. Rallies and agreed to settle the same by
    payment of Rs.4.05 crores. Thereafter in August, 2006, Mis.
    Rallie::; India through Mr. Ankur Sharma (recovery agent) lodged
    a complaint under Sections 403, 405, 406, 408, 415, 420 rlw
G Section 34 of the IPC against Respondent no.1 and aforesaid
    two firms and their respective partners with the Economic
    Offences Wing, Mumbai.

        5. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the Managing Director and
    Chairman of the Company- Mis. Chemical Bio Tech Limited,
H
•          P.S. MEHERHOMJI v. K.T. VIJAY KUMAR
                     [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
    respectively. Respondent's Company with an intention to go for
                                                                   55

                                                                        A
    public issue engaged Ashika Capital Limited, Mumbai as lead
    manager to handle their public issue and in course of their due
    diligence acts, sought clarification and information in respect
    of respondent Company's credentials so as to go ahead with
    the publication of prospectus.                                      B

         6. It is alleged that the present appellant, representing
    Rallis India as its Company Secretary, addressed a letter dated
    14.12.2006 to the Miiriager-MBD of Ashika Capital Limited,
    Mumbai making false and baseless allegations against the C
    respondents with a malicious intention of causing wrongful loss
    to them. The said letter was forwarded by the present appellant
    marking copies to Managing Director, Ashika Capital Limited;
    Secretary, Indian Bank Association, Mumbai; Managing
    Director, Credit Information Bureau, Mumbai; Chairman, SEBI,
    Mumbai; Finance Minister, Government of India, New Delhi; D
    State Minister of Finance (Banking), New Delhi; Secretary,
    Ministry of Finance, New Delhi; Secretary(Banking) Government
    of India, New Delhi, Joint Secretary(Banking), Govt. of India,
    New Delhi and Joint Secretary (C.M.) Department of Economic
    Affairs, New Delhi.                                             E

         7. The said letter contained the following imputations:

        "Mr. K.T. Vijay Kumar along with his brother Mr.
        Balakrishna Rao had affected suitable change in the
        shareholding pattern as the part of well-planned conspiracy     F
        perfectly planned and executed by them and other directors
        of the Chemical Biotech Ltd. to cheat and depute the
        common men via the IPO mode and finally to embezzle
        crores of rupees.
                                                                        G
        We are in the process of approaching CBL's banks,
        financial institutions and the state government departments
        which have also been mislead by these habitual cheats
        and had been made a part of the conspiracy in the
        proposed initial public offer.                                  H
A
    56       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 11 S.C.R.


         This shall help these banks, financial institution & state govt.
                                                                            •
         departments to revaluate their support for these habitual
         cheats at the cost of public.money."

        8. The said letter was in turn forwarded by Ashika Capital
  Ltd. to Respondents' Company on 21.12.2006 .. lt was alleged
8
  by the respondents that the imputations made in the letter dated
  14.12.2006 are defamatory. Hence, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
  filed a private complaint in the Court of Is! Additional Chief
  Metropolitan Magistrate, against the present proforma
C respondent Company viz., Rallis India through its Managing
  Director, present appellant (Company Secretary of proforma
  Respondent Company) and the directors of the proforma
  respondent Company. The trial court took cognizance of the
  offence against present appellant and proforma respondent
  company and held that a prima facie case is made out under
D Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC making the proforma
  Respondent Company and the appellant as necessary parties
  for the cause of action and they were accordingly summoned
  as accused nos.1 & 2.

E        9. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court the present
    appellant and proforma respondent-Company preferred a
    Criminal Petition No.3917 of 2007 under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
    before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh praying inter alia to
    quash the complaint initiated against them. The High Court
F   dismissed the said petition and observed that the contents of
    the letter dated 14.12.2006, authored by the present appellant,
    prima facie contained defamatory statements. Hence, the
    present appeal by special leave.

      10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties
G appearing on either side and have gone through the impugned
  order passed by the High Court.

       11. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for
  the appellant, assailed the impugned order as being erroneous
H and against the settled principles of law laid down by this Court
•       P.S. MEHERHOMJI v. K.T. VIJAY KUMAR
                  [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
                                                              57

  in a number of decisions. Learned counsel firstly submitted that A
  the allegations made in the complaint together with annexures
  relied on their face value does not make out an offence against
· the appellant. Learned counsel submitted that the High Court
  has committed an error in dismissing the quashing petition
  without perusing sole alleged letter, which is the subject matter B
  of complaint. Dr. Singhvi submitted that the alleged letter dated
  14.12.2006, which is the basis of taking cognizance, was
  allegedly sent from the office of respondent No.4 Company
   under the signature of one colleague of the appellant without
  the knowledge or prior permission of the appellant and the said  c
   letter was never signed by the present appellant. Learned
  counsel put heavy reliance on the decision of this Court in the
  case of State of Maharashtra vs. Sayed Mohammad
  Masood & Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 787. Learned counsel
  submitted that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue D
   against the present appellant, when pre-summoning of the
  evidence does not make out any offence, would tantamount to
  abuse of process of court inasmuch as a false case has been
   made out against the appellant. Dr. Singhvi submitted that the
   appellant cannot be an accused for commission of an offence
   of defamation when the document relied in the complaint clearly E
   and categorically points out that the appellant had no role to
   play in any part of the alleged commission of the offence.
   Learned counsel further relied upon the decision of this Court
   in the case of Thermax Limited & Ors. vs. K.M. Johny &
   Ors. (2011) 13 SCC 412, Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs. F
   Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692.

      12. Indisputably, judicial process should not be an
 instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The court
 should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion G
 and should take all the 0 relevant facts and circumstances into
 consideration before issuing process lest it would be an
 instrument in the hands of private complainant as vendetta to
 harass the persons needlessly.
                                                                   H
    58       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 11 S.C.R. •


A        13. It is equally well settled that summoning of an accused
    in a criminal case is a serious matter and the order taking
    cognizance by the Magistrate summoning the accused must
    reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and
    the law applicable thereto. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
B · Procedure empowers the High Court to ·exercise its inherent
    powers to prevent abuse of the process of court and to quash
    the proceeding instituted on complaint but such power could
    be exercised only in cases where the complaint does not
    disclose any offence or is vexatious or oppressive. If the
c   allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence
    of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the
    High Court to quash the same in exercise of power under
    Section 482.

         14. So far as the complaint alleging offence under Section
D   499 IPC is concerned, if on consideration of the allegaUons the
    complaint is supported by a statement of the complainant on
    oath and the necessary ingredients of the offence are
    disclosed, the High Court should not normally interfere with the
    order taking cognizance.
E
        15. In the case of Dhanalakshmi vs. R. Prasanna Kumar
    and Others, 1990(Supp) SCC 686, a three Judge Bench of
    this Court held:-

         "3. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
F        empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent powers
         to prevent abuse of the process of court. In proceedings
         instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to
         quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where
         the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous,
G        vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the
         complaint do not constitute the offence of which
         cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High
         Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers
         under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there
H        should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial
•         P.S. MEHERHOMJI v. K.T. VIJAY KUMAR
                    [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
                                                                 59

        to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not.   A
        The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on
        a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the
        statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of
        the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material
        to show that the complaint is mala fide frivolous or           B
        vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for
        interference by the High Court."

         16. In the case of Chand Dhawan vs. Jawahar Lal and
    Others, AIR 1992 SC 1379, this Court, while considering the C
    power of the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and
    quashing the criminal proceedings, observed that when the High
    Court is called upon to exercise its jurisdiction to quash the
    proceedings at the stage of the Magistrate taking cognizance
    of the offence, the High Court is guided by the allegations,
    whether those allegations, set out in the complaint or the D
    charge-sheet, do not in law constitute or spell out any offence
    and that resort to criminal proceedings would, in the
    circumstances, amount to an abuse of the process of court or
    not.
                                                                       E
        17. In Radhey Shyam Khemka vs. State of Bihar,
    (1993) 3 SCC 54, this Court again held:-

        "8. The complaint made by the Deputy Secretary to the
        Government of India to the CBI mentions different
        circumstances to show that the appellants did not intend F
        to carry on any business. In spite of the rejection of the
        application by the Stock Exchange, Calcutta they retained
        the share moneys of the applicants with dishonest intention.
        Those allegations were investigated by the CBI and
        ultimately charge-sheet has been submitted. On basis of G
        that charge-sheet cognizance has been taken. In such a
        situation the quashing of the prosecution pending against
        the appellants only on the ground that it was open to the
        applicants for shares to take recourse to the provisions of
        the Companies Act, cannot be accepted. It is a futile H
A
    60       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 11 S.C.R.


         attempt on the part of the appellants, to close the chapter
                                                                            •
         before it has unfolded itself. It will be for the trial court to
         examine whether on the materials produced on behalf of
         the prosecution it is established that the appellants had
         issued the prospectus inviting applications in respect of
B        shares of the Company aforesaid with a dishonest
         intention, or having received the moneys from the
         applicants they had dishonestly retained or
         misappropriated the same. That exercise cannot be
         performed either by the High Court or by this Court. If
c        accepting the allegations made and charges levelled on
         their face value, the Court had come to conclusion that no
         offence under the .Penal Code was disclosed the matter
         would have been different. This Court has repeatedly
         pointed out that the High Court should not, while exercising
         power under Section 482 of the Code, usurp the
D
         jurisdiction of the trial court. The power under Section 482
         of the Code has been vested in the High Court to quash a
         prosecution which amounts to abuse of the process of the
         court. But that power cannot be exercised by the High Court
         to hold a parallel trial, only on basis of the statements and
E        documents collected during investigation or inquiry, for
         purpose of expressing an opinion whether the accused
         concerned is likely to be punished if the trial is allowed to.
         proceed."

F      18. In the case of Mushtaq Ahmad vs. Mohd. Habibur
    Rehman Faizi and Others, (1997) 7 SCC 441, this Court
    observed:-

         "3. Having perused the impugned judgment in the light of
         the complaint and its accompaniments we are constrained
G
         to say, that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under
         Section 482 CrPC in passing the impugned judgment and
         order. It is rather unfortunate that though the High Court
         referred to the decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
         1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 wherein this Court has
H
•         P.S. MEHERHOMJI v. K.T. VIJAY KUMAR
                    [M.Y. EQBAL, J.)
                                                                61


        enumerated by way of illustration the categories of cases A
        in which power to quash complaint or FIR can be
        exercised, it did not keep in mind - much less adhered
        to - the following note of caution given therein: (SCC p.
        379, para 103)
                                                                      B
               "We also give a note of caution to the effect that the
        power of quashing a criminal proceeding shquld be
        exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that
        too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be
        justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability
        or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the
                                                                     c
         FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent
         powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court
        to act according to its whim or caprice."

        19. The relevant paragraphs of the complaint filed by the D
    respondent in the present case are reproduced hereinbelow:-

              "That the complainant's company chemical Biotech
        Ltd., with an intention to go in with public issue engaged
        Ashika Capital Limited, a company based in Mumbai as E
        Lead Managers to handle their public issue and in the
        course of their due diligence act they have sought for
        certain clarifications and information in respect of the
        Complainant Company's credentials so as to go ahead
        with the publication of the prospectus, as the 1st accused
                                                                   F
        earlier made a representation against the Complainants
        to SEBI.

              That the 2 nd accused representing the 1st Accused
        Company through a letter dated 14.12.2006 addressed to
        Mr. Hari Surya, Manager-MBD, Ashika Capital Limited, G
        Nariman Point, Mumbai, have made very wild false and
        absolutely baseless allegations against the complainants
        1 and 2 only with a malicious intention to cause wrongful
        loss to the complainant's company for the simple reason
        and fact that it has become a strong competitor in the State H
                                                                          ----.
A
    62       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 11 S.C.R.


         of Andhra Pradesh to the business of the Accused
                                                                          •
         Company. The said letter is also forwarded by the 2nd
         Accused by marking a copy of the same to 1) Managing
         Director, Ashika Capital Limited, 2) The Secretary, Indian
         Banks Association, Mumbai, 3) The Chairman, Securities
B        and Exchange Board· of India, 5) Finance Minister,
         Government of India, New Delhi, 6) State Minister of
         Finance (Banking), Govt. of India, New Delhi, 7) Secretary,
         Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, 8) Secretary (Banking)
         Government of India, New Delhi, 9) Joint Secretary
c        Banking, Government of India, Nerw Delhi and 10) Joint
         Secretary (CM), Department of Economic Affairs, New
         Delhi.

               That the said letter is in turn forwarded by Ashika
         Capital Limited, Mumbai to the complainants to their
D        Registered Office at Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh on
         21.12.2006 and the Complainants were shocked and
         surprised to read th!'! contents of the same at Vijayawada.

                The allegations contained in the said letter in so far
E        as it refers to the Complainants are absolutely false and
         baseless and are written with intent to de!fame the
         complainants and malign their reputation. The impugned
         words "Cheat and Dupe the common man via the l.P.O.
         mode and finally to embezzle crores of rupee" and "These
F        habitual cheats had. been made part of the conspiracy in
         the proposed initial public offer" referring to the complaints
         directly or per-se defamatory and derogatory and the very
         letter dated 14.12.2006 on the face of it is calculated to
         harm the reputation of the complainants without any valid
         foundation.
G
              The said letter is couched in a wild and unrestrained
         language and written in scurrilous imputing dishonest
         character to the complaints."

H        20. The .trial court after considering the allegations made
•      P.S. MEHERHOMJI v. K.T. VIJAY KUMAR
                 [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]

in the complaint and the statement recorded on oath came to
                                                               63


                                                                      A
the conclusion that prima facie a case is made out for
summoning the appellant and the case was taken on file.
Concluding portion of the order as contained in paragraph no.5
is quoted hereinbelow :-
                                                                      B
    "As per the Statement of Complaint, they also got issued
    legal notice to the accused questioning the letter on
    13.12.2006 and it is duly acknowledged by the accused,
    but they did not respond for the reasons best known. Copy
    of legal notice and postal acknowledgments were also              C
    filed along with the complaint. Evidence spoken by the
    complainant and the documents enclosed including the
    documents referred above, prima facie made out the case
    for the offences U/sec. 499 and 500 IPC. Except the vague
    averments made in the complaint, probably to attract the          D
    offences against A.3 to A.9 who are only directors of the
    company, no material is places to substantiate their active
    participation in releasing the letter dt.14.12.2006 by a.2
    who is Company Secretary of a.1 company. A.1 is a
    company represented by; its Managing Director. It is a
    legal entity. Company is sued arraying as A.1 in the name         E
    of its Managing Director and author of the letter is arrayed
    as A.2. In these circumstances, A.1 company and A.2
    Secretary of A.1 company are only necessary and proper
     parties. No overacts against the other accused (A.3 to A.9)
    who are only directors of a.1 company. In the                     F
    circumstances, case is taken on file for the offences U/
    Sec.499 arid 500 IPC against A.1 and A.2 dismissing the
    complaint U/Sec.203 Cr.P.C. against A.3 to A.9. It
    appears A.3 to A.9 are arrayed as parties only to cause
     harassment to them unnecessarily. No material is placed          G
    to substantiate their active participation in releasing the
    letter by A.2 on behalf of A.1 company. No prima facie case
    against A.3 to A.9 for the offences /sec. 499 and 500 IPC."

     21. Dr. Singhvi, for the first time before this Court tried to   H
A
    64        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 11 S.C.R.


    make out a case that the letter dated 14.12.2006 which is the
                                                                          •
    basis of taking cognizance was allegedly sent from the office
    of Respondent No.4 Company under the signature of one
    colleague of the appellant without the knowledge or prior
    permission of the appellant and the said letter was never
B   signed by the present· appellant. In our view, if that is so, it is
    open to the appellant to take a defense and prove their
    contention during trial. Needless to say that the tnial court shall
    consider the said contention during trial and record its findings.

        22. After giving our thoughtful consideration in the matter
C   we are of the view that the High Court rightly refused to quasli
    the criminal proceedings in exercise of power under Section
    482 Cr.P.C.

        23. We find no merit in this case, and for the aforesaid
D   reasons, we dismiss the Appeal.

    Kalpana K. Tripathy                               Appeal dismissed.