Holding

The High Court exceeded its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC by quashing the proceedings, as the complaint and accompanying material disclosed a prima facie case and the power to quash may be exercised only in exceptional cases where the complaint is frivolous, vexatious or lacks any offence.

Summary

The appellant alleged that A‑1 to A‑12 conspired, motivated by political rivalry, to assault and attempt to kill him, leading to a charge‑sheet under Sections 120‑B, 147, 148, 427, 307, 201 (r.w.) and 149 of the IPC. While the trial was pending, A‑1 to A‑3 filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash the proceedings, and the High Court granted the petition. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in exercising its inherent power to quash the case. It held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 is to be exercised only in exceptional cases where the complaint is frivolous, vexatious or fails to disclose any offence, and that the High Court erred by analysing the evidence and assuming the ingredients of the offence were not made out. The Court found that the FIR, charge‑sheet and witness statements together disclosed a prima facie case, and therefore the quashing order was improper. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed the trial court to continue the prosecution, allowing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court may quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC when the complaint discloses a prima facie case.
Whether the High Court erred by examining the evidence and concluding that the ingredients of the offence were not made out.
Whether alternative statutory remedies were available, precluding the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482.
Whether the material on record (FIR, charge‑sheet, witness statements) suffices to constitute a prima facie case against the accused.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120-B, s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 201, s. 307, s. 427

Subjects

Section 482inherent jurisdictionquashing of criminal proceedingsprima facie caseabuse of processpolitical rivalryconspiracyIndian Penal Code offences

Judgment

[2011] 9 S.C.R. 623

~
PADAL VENKATA RAMA REDDY @ RAMU .A
v.
KOWURI SATYANARAYANA REDDY AND ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1499 of 2011)
~ JULY 29, 2011
B
" [P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 - Scope of -
Discussed - Chargesheet filed for commission of offences u/
ss.120-B, 147, 148, 427, 307, 201 r.w. s.149, /PC - Criminal c
proceedings commenced against A-1 to A-12 - Petition by
A-1 to A-3 for quashing of proceedings, allowed by High Court
- On appeal, held: In a criminal proceeding instituted on a
~ complaint, exercise of inherent powers to quash the
proceedings is called for only in a case in which complaint D
does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or
oppressive - There is no need to analyse each and every
aspect meticulously before the trial to find out whether the
case would end in conviction or acquittal - The complaint has
to be read as a whole - In the instant case, perusal of entire E
complaint, materials collected and stated in the form of
chargesheet, statement of witnesses did not lead to
presumption that there was no legal and acceptable evidence
in support of prosecution - High Court exceeded its power in
;t
quashing the criminal proceedings on the erroneous F
assumption that the ingredients of the offence alleged by the
prosecution were not made out - High Court also committed
an error in assuming that with the materials available, the
prosecution could not end in conviction - The impugned order
quashing the criminal proceedings against A 1 to A-3 is set
G
aside - Trial Court directed to proceed with the case against
' A 1 to A-3 in accordance with law - Penal Code, 1860 -'
ss.120-B, 147, 148, 427, 307, 201 r.w. s.149.

The prosecution case was that A-1 and A-2 had
623 H
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A political rivalry with the appellant. A-1 and A-2 hired A-4 •
for killing the appellant. A-4 hired A-5 to A-12 for the said
purpose and they conspired together and hatched a plan
to assault the appellant. A-3 was entrusted with the
responsibility of giving information about the movements
B of the appellant.
)
On the day of incident, the appellant was travelling
in his car with his wife and children. A-4, A-7 to A-12 who
were in Scorpio car came across his car. In the
C meanwhile, A-5 and A-6 also came there on motorcycle
belonging to A-2. A-4 and A-12 broke the windowpanes
of the car of the appellant while A-5 sprinkled chilly
powder into the eyes of the appellant and attacked him
with rods and sticks and caused injuries on vital parts of
his body which resulted in bleeding. Thereafter A-4 to A12
D left the spot. The appellant somehow managed to escape
from the place of the incident and went to the house of
L.W.6 who admitted him in the hospital and informed the
incident to the police. Chargesheet was filed against A-1
to A-12 under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 427, 307, 201 r.w.
E Section 149, IPC. When the case was pending for trial, A-
1-3 filed petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the
proceedings against them. The High Court allowed the
petition and quashed the proceedings.

F The question which arose for consideration in the
instant appeal was whether the High Court was justified
in quashing the criminal proceedings against the
Respondent Nos. 1-3 (A1-A3) by invoking jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
G 1973.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure deals with inherent power of High Court. This
H section was added by the Code of Criminal Procedure
PADAL VENKATA RAMA REDDY @ RAMU v. KOWURI 625
SATYANARAYANA REDDY

(Amendment) Act of 1923 as the High Courts were unable A
to render complete justice even if in a given case the
illegality was palpable and apparent. This section
envisages three circumstances in which the inherent
jurisdiction may be exercised, namely to give effect to
any order under Cr.P.C.; to prevent abuse of the process B
of any court; to secure the ends of justice. Though the
High Court has inherent power and its scope is very wide,
it is a rule of practice that it will only be exercised in
exceptional cases. Section 482 is a sort of reminder to the
High Courts that they are not merely courts of law, but c
also courts of justice and possess inherent powers to
remove injustice. The inherent power of the High Court
is an inalienable attribute of the position it holds with
respect to the courts subordinate to it. These powers are
partly administrative and partly judicial. They are
0
necessarily judicial when they are exercisable with
respect to a judicial order and for securing the ends of
justice. The jurisdiction under Section 482 is
discretionary, therefore, the High Court may refuse to
exercise the discretion if a party has not approached it
with clean hands. [Para 6, 8] [632-F-H; 633-A-C; 634-F-H] E

R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866:(1960)
3 SCR 388; State of Kamataka v. L. Muniswamy & Ors. AIR
1977 SC 1489: 1977 (3) SCR 113 - relied on.
F
1.2. In a proceeding under Section 482, the High
Court will not enter into any finding of facts, particularly,
when the matter has been concluded by concurrent
finding of facts of two courts below. Inherent powers
under Section 482 include powers to quash FIR, G
investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before
t the High Court or any court subordinate to it and are of
wide magnitude and ramification. Such powers can be
exercised to secure ends of justice, prevent abuse of the
process of any court and to make such orders as may H

,I
626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, •
depending upon the facts of a given case. Court can
always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent
the same by exercising its powers under Section 482 of
the Code. These powers are neither limited nor curtailed
B by any other provisions of the Code. However such
inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly, carefully
and with caution. It is well settled that the inherent powers
under Section 482 can be exercised only when no other
remedy is available to the litigant and not in a situation
c where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. It
cannot be used if it is inconsistent with specific
provisions provided under the Code. If an effective
alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not
exercise its powers under this section, specially when the
applicant may not have availed of that remedy. [Para 9, ~
D
10) [635-A-F]

Kavita v. State (2000) Cr LJ 315; B.S. Joshi v. State of
Haryana& Anr. (2003) 4 SCC 675: 2003 (2) SCR 1104 -
relied on.
E
1.3. The inherent power is to be exercised ex debito
justitiae, to do real and substantial justice, for
administration of which alone Courts exist. Wherever any
attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce
f,
F injustice, the Court has power to prevent the abuse. It is,
however, not necessary that at this stage there should be
a meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find
out whether the case ends in conviction or acquittal. [Para
11] [635-G-H]
G Mrs. Dhana/akshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar & Ors. AIR
1990 SC 494: 1989 Suppl. SCR 165; Ganesh Narayan ~
Hegde v. S. Bangarappa & Ors. (1995) 4 SCC 41: 1995(3)
SCR 549; Mis Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Ors. v.
Md. Sharaful Haque & Ors. AIR 2005 SC 9: 2004 (5) Suppl.
IH SCR 790; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC
PADAL VENKATA RAMA REDDY @ RAMU v. KOWURI 627
SATYANARAYANA REDDY
• ~·

335: 1991 (1) Suppl. SCR 387; Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary A
and Others (1992 (4) SCC 305: 1992 (1) Suppl. SCR 226;
Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and Another v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
and Another 1995 (6) SCC 194: 1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 237;
Indian Oil Corp. v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others 2006 (6) SCC
• 736: 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 704; State of Orissa &Anr. v. Saroj B
• Kumar Sahoo (2005) 13 SCC 540: 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 548;
Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia & Anr. v. Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. AIR 1988 SC 709: 1988 (2) SCR
930; State of Bihar &Anr. v. Shri P.P. Sharma &Anr. AIR 1991
SC 1260: 1991 (2) SCR 1 - relied on.
c
2.1. No doubt, in the FIR, the complainant had not
named the respondent nos.1-3 as accused. In Column No.
5 of the FIR under heading "Alleged cause", it was stated
;i
"Alleged to have been sustained injuries on the head, face
., due to assault by unknown persons near J.K. Kalyana D
Mandapam, Rajahmundry today (07.11.2007) around 7:00
p.m." Though the complainant did not specify any name,
he asserted that while taking a turn from J.N. Road to J.K.
Gardens, some unknown persons kept their maroon color
Scorpio car came across his way at around 7:30 p.m. and E
about 10 persons got down from it, while 5 others from
auto armed with iron rods and sticks and they hit the
glass on his side to stop him while he was driving the car.
.~\ It was also asserted that when he put down the door
glasses, those persons sprinkled chilly powder on them. F
After narrating further detdils, at the end, the complainant
concluded that those pers,.,ns conspired together and
attacked with an intention to kill him in a planned manner.
It was further stated that they all appeared to be goondas
and if his wife, children and he himself would see them G
i
" again, it would be possible to identify them. The single
Judge of the High Court, after analyzing the FIR,
chargesheet and the statement of witnesses concluded
that the materials placed by the prosecution were
inadequate and ingredients of offence alleged by the H
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A prosecution were not made out and quashed the
proceedings against respondents. [Paras 19, 20] [640-H;
641-A·G]
2.2. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark
8
upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is
reliable or not or whether on reasonable appreciation of
it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function
of the trial Judge The scope of exercise of power under \
Section 482 and the categories of cases where the High
C Court may exercise its power under it relating to
cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set
out in detail in Bhajan Lal. The powers possessed by the
High Court under Section 482 are very wide and at the
D same time the power requires great caution in its
exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its
decision in exercise of this power is based on sound
principles. The inherent power should not be exercised
to stifle a legitimate prosecution. It would not be proper
E for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant
in the light of all the probabilities in order to determine
whether conviction would be sustainable and on such
premise arriving at a conclusion that the proceedings are
to be quashed. In a proceeding instituted on a complaint,
F exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings is
called for only in a case in which complaint does not
disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or
oppressive. There is no need to analyse each and every
aspect meticulously before the trial to find out whether
G the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The
complaint has to be read as a whole. The statement of
I
witnesses made on ,oath is to be verified in full and
'
materials put forth in the chargesheet ought to be taken
note of as a whole before arriving any conclusion. It is
H the material concluded during the investigation and
PADAL VENKATA RAMA REDDY @ RAMU v. KOWURI 629
SATYANARAYANA REDDY
;,
~ evidence led in court which decides the fate of the A
accused persons. On going through the entire complaint,
materials collected and stated in the form of chargesheet,
statement of witnesses and by conjoint reading of all the
materials, it cannot be presumed that there was no legal
and acceptable evidence in support of prosecution. The B
~
High Court exceeded its power in quashing the criminal
proceedings on the erroneous assumption that the
ingredients of the offence alleged by the prosecution
were not made out. The High Court also committed an
error in assuming that with the materials available, the c
/ prosecution could not end in conviction. The impugned
order quashing the criminal proceedings against the
Respondent Nos. 1-3, i.e. A1-A3 is set aside. The trial
Court is directed to proceed with the case against the
..i respondents in accordance with law. [Para 24-26] [645- D
A-H; 646-A-E]
t
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp. (1) SCC
335: 1991 (1) Suppl. SCR 387 - relied on.
Case Law Reference: E
(1960) 3 SCR 388 relied on Para 7
1977 (3) SCR 113 relied on Para 8
(2000) Cr LJ 315) relied on Para 10
F
2003 (2) SCR 1104 relied on Para 10
1989 Suppl. SCR 165 relied on Para 11
1995 (J) SCR 549 relied on Para 11
2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 790 relied on Para 11,24 G
I 1991 (1) Suppl. SCR 387 relied on Para 12
>!

1992 (1) Suppl. SCR 226 relied on Para 12, 24
1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 237 relied on Para 12
H
630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

yl
A 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 704 relied on Para 12,14
1991 (1) Suppl. SCR 387 relied on Para 13
2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 548 relied on Para 15
1988 (2) SCR 930 relied on Para 16,17,18,
B
1991 (2) SCR 1 relied on Para 18
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1499 of 2011.

c From the Judgment & Order dated 28.10.2010 of the High
Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal
Petition No. 5928 of 2010.
Guntur Prabhakar, G. Pramod Kumar for the Appellant.
~

D Altaf Ahmed, S.J. Aristotle, Prabhu Rama Subramanian,
Aljo K. Joseph, V.G. Pragasam, D. Mahesh Babu, Ramesh
Allanki, Savita for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

E P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and
order dated 28.10.2010 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 5928 of 2010
wherein the High Court allowed the criminal petition filed by t.
IF Respondent Nos. 1-3 herein and quashed the criminal
. proceedings pending against them.
3. Brief facts:
(a) The appellant, who was a defacto complainant and
G Respondent Nos. 1-3 (accused persons) are the residents of
Komaripalem village of East Godavari District. Though all of
them belong to Congress Party, Respondent No. 1, Kovvuri
Satyanarayana Reddy (A-1) and Respondent No. 2, Karri
Venkata Mukunda Reddy (A-2) developed ill will against the
H appellant and were jealous of his gaining popularity within the
PADAL VENKATA RAMA REDDY@ RAMU v. KOWURI 631
\,
SATYANARAYANA REDDY [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

party as well as in their area and neighbourhood. Respondent A
No. 3, Mallidi Chinna Veera Venkata Satyanarayana (A-3), was
initially an associate of the appellant herein but later joined
hands with A-1 and A-2.
~
(b) In the year 2006, the appellant contested Zila Parishad B
Territorial Constituency Elections as an independent candidate
and won it. A-1 and A-2 developed grudge against the appellant
and they contracted Valmiki Gujjula Ramayya Kondayya (A-4)
who belongs to Emmiganur Mandal of Kurnool District for killing
the appellant and gave him Rs. 7,00,000/- to purchase a vehicle
and also gave separate amount for hiring goondas. A-4 hired
c
A-5 to A-12 for the said purpose and they conspired together
and hatched a plan to assault the appellant. Further, A-3 was
.) entrusted with the responsibility of giving information about the
movements of the appellant.
D
(c) In pursuance of their conspiracy, on 07.11.2007
between 7:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. when the appellant was
proceeding in ;1is Honda City car along with his wife and
children to attend a function near J.K. Gardens, A-4, A-7 to A-
12 who were in a Scorpio Car came across his car. In the E
meanwhile, A-5 and A-6 also came there on Bajaj Boxer
Motorcycle belonging to A-2 where A-4 and A-12 broke the
windowpanes of the car while A-5 sprinkled chilly powder into
t
J
the eyes of the appellant and attacked him with rods and sticks
and caused injuries on his vital parts of the body which resulted F
in bleeding. Thereafter, A-4 to A-12 left the spot. Somehow the
appellant managed to escape from the place of incident and
went to the house of Jakkampudi Raja Indra Vandir (L.W.-6),
who admitted him in the hospital and informed the incident to
the SHO, I Town (L&O), Police Station, Rajahmundry. G
(d) After completion of investigation, the S.I. filed charge
sheet against A-1 to A-12 on 30.08.2008 for the offences
punishable under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 427, 307, 201
read with Section 149 of the lndlan Penal Code (in short "the
IPC") before the Court of llnd Additional Judicial Magistrate H
632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011J 9 S.C.R.

A First Class, Rajahmundry and the same was taken on file in
PRC No. 14 of 2008. The Magistrate committed the case to
the 1st Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry for
trial and the same was taken on file in Sessions Case No. 175
of 2010.
B
(e) When the case was pending for trial, Respondent Nos.
1-3 herein preferred Criminal Petition No. 5928 of 2010 before
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "the Code") to
C quash the criminal proceedings against them. The learned
single Judge of the High Court, by impugned judgment dated
28.10.2010, allowed the petition and quashed the criminal
proceedings against Respondent Nos. 1-3 herein (A-1 to A-
3). Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-complainant has
filed this appeal by way of special leave petition before this
D Court.

4. Heard Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior counsel for
Respondent Nos. 1-3 and Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, learned
E counsel for Respondent No.4-State.

5. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether
the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal
proceedings against the Respondent Nos. 1-3 (A1-A3) by
invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code?
F
Discussion about Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

6. Section 482 of the Code deals with inherent power of
High Court. It is under Chapter XXXVll of the Code titled
G "Miscellaneous" which reads as under:
"482. Saving of inherent power of High Court- Nothing
in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent
powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be
necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or
H to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise
PADAL VENKATA RAMA REDDY @ RAMU v. KOWURI 633
i. SATYANARAYANA REDDY [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

to secure the ends of justice." A

This section was added by the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Amendment) Act of 1923 as the High Courts were unable to
~
render complete justice even if in a given case the illegality was
palpable and apparent. This section envisages three
B
circumstances in which the inherent jurisdiction may be
exercised, namely:

1. to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C.,

2. to prevent abuse of the process of any court, c
3. to secure the ends of justice .
...l
7. In R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC
866=(1960) 3 SCR 388, this Court laid down the following
principles:- D

"(i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings
against an accused may amount to the abuse of the
process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned
proceedings would secure the ends of justice; E
(ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar
against the institution or continuance of the said
A
proceeding, e.g. want of sanction;

(iii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or F
the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and

(iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but
I
j there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence
G
adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge."

8. In State of Kamataka vs. L.Muniswamy & Ors. AIR 1977
SC 1489, this Court has held as under:-

"In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court H
634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes 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 saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil
B and criminal matters is designed to achieve a salutary
public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not
to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of
harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled
object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the
c materiai on which the structure of the prosecution rests and
the like would justify the High Court in quashing the
proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice
are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has
got to be administered according to laws made by the
legislature. The compelling necessity for making these
D
observations is that without a proper realisation of the
object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save
the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice
between the State and its subjects it would be impossible
to appreciate the width and contours of that salient
E jurisdiction."
Though the High Court has inherent power and its scope is very
wide, it is a rule of practice that it will only be exercised in
exceptional cases. Section 482 is a sort of reminder to the High t,
F Courts that they are not merely courts of law, but also courts of
justice and possess inherent powers to remove injustice. The
inherent power of the High Court is an inalienable attribute of
the position it holds with respect to the courts subordinate to
it. These powers are partly administrative and partly judicial.
G They are necessarily judicial when they are exercisable with
respect to a judicial order and for securing the ends of justice.
The jurisdiction under Section 482 is discretionary, therefore
' the High Court may refuse to exercise the discretion if a party
has not approached it with clean hands.
H
PADAL VENKATA RAMA REDDY @ RAMU v. KOWURI 635
SATYANARAYANA REDDY [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
~
9. In a proceeding under Section 482, the High Court will A
not enter into any finding of facts, particularly, when the matter
has been concluded by concurrent finding of facts of two courts
';....
below. Inherent powers under Section 482 include powers to
~
quash FIR, investigation or any criminal proceedings pending
before the High Court or any court subordinate to it and are of B
wide magnitude and ramification. Such powers can be
exercised to secure ends of justice, prevent abuse of the
process of any court and to make such orders as may be
necessary to give effect to any order under this Code,
depending upon the facts of a given case. Court can always c
take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same
by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code. These
powers are neither limited nor curtailed by any other provisions
' ..\ of the Code. However such inherent powers are to be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with caution.
D
10. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section
482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available
to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is
provided by the statute. It cannot be used if it is inconsistent
with specific provisions provided under the Code.- (vide Kavita E
v. State (2000 Cr LJ 315) and 8.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana
& Anr. ((2003) 4 sec 675). If an effective alternative remedy
is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers under
> .this section, specially when the applicant may not have availed
of that remedy. F

~)
11. The inherent power is to be exercised ex debito
justitiae, to do real and substantial justice, for administration of
which alone Courts exist. Wherever any attempt is made to
abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has
G
power to prevent the abuse. It is, however, not necessary that
at this stage there should be a meticulous analysis of the case
before the trial to find out whether the case ends in conviction
or acquittal. (Vide Mrs. Dhanalakshmi vs. R. Prasanna Kumar
& Ors. AIR 1990 SC 494; Ganesh Narayan Hegde vs. S.
H
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 9 S.C.R.

A Bangarappa & Ors. (1995) 4 SCC 41; and Mis Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Ors. vs. Md. Sharaful Haque &
Ors. AIR 2005 SC 9).
/

12. It is neither feasible nor practicable to lay down
exhaustively as to on what ground the jurisdiction of the High
B
Court under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised. But
some attempts have been made in that behalf in some of the
decisions of this Court vide State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal
(1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary and
Others (1992 (4) SCC 305), Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and
c Another vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and Another (1995 (6) SCC
194), and Indian Oil Corp. vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Others
(2006 (6) sec 736).
l .

13. In the landmark case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan
D Lal (1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335) this Court considered in detail
the provisions of Section 482 and the power of the High Court
to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. This Court summarized
the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be
followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to
E quash a criminal complaint:

"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
j,
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
F 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
G by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and
the evidence collected in support of the same do not
H
PADAL VENKATA RAMA REDDY @ RAMU v. KOWURI 637
).-" SATYANARAYANA REDDY [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

disclose the commission of any offence and make out a 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 B
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which
no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that c
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
)
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
' of the provisions of the Code or the concerned-Act (under D
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is
a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party. E
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
,? instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge." F

14. In Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. and
Others (2006) 6 SCC 736 a petition under Section 482 was
filed to quash two criminal complaints. The High Court by a
common judgment allowed the petition and quashed both the G
complaints. The order was challenged in appeal to this Court.
While deciding the appeal, this Court laid down the following
principles:
"1. The High courts should not exercise their inherent
powers to repress a legitimate prosecution. The power to H
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 9 S.C.R.

A quash criminal complaints should be used sparingly and
with abundant caution.

2. The criminal complaint is not required to verbatim
reproduce the legal ingredients of the alleged offence. If
the necessary factual foundation is laid in the criminal
B
complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients
have not been stated in detail, the criminal proceedings
should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is
warranted only where the complaint is bereft of even the
basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out
c the alleged offence.

3. It was held that a given set of facts may make out (a)
purely a civil wrong, or (b) purely a criminal offence or (c)
a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial '
D transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing
a cause of action for seeking reriedy in civil law, may also
involve a criminal offence."
15. In State of Orissa & Anr. vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo
(2005) 13 sec 540, it has been held that probabilities of the
E
prosecution version cannot be analysed at this stage. Likewise
the allegations of mala fides of the informant are of secondary
importance. The relevant passage reads thus:
1,
"It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the
F case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in
order to determine whether a conviction would be
sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion
that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be
erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude
G that the complaint cannot be proceeded with."
16. In Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia & Anr. vs.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. AIR 1988 SC 709,
this Court held as under:-
H
PADAL VENKATA RAMA REDDY @ RAMU v. KOWURI 639
SATYANARAYANA REDDY [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

"The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution A
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 prima facie establish the offence. It
is also for the court to take into consideration any special
~
features which appear in a particular case to consider B
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 utilised for any oblique purpose
and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate
conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is c
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."

17. This Court, while reconsidering the Judgment in D
Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia (supra), consistently observed
that where matters are also of civil nature i.e. matrimonial, family
disputes, etc., the Court may consider "special facts", "special
features" and quash the criminal proceedings to encourage
genuine settlement of disputes between the parties. E
18. The said Judgment was reconsidered and explained
by this Court in State of Bihar & Anr. vs. Shri P.P. Sharma &
Anr. AIR 1991 SC 1260 which reads as under:

"Madhaorao J. Scindhia v. Sambhaji Rao AIR 1988 SC F
709, also does not help the respondents. In that case the
allegations constituted civil wrong as the trustees created
tenancy of Trust property to favour the third party. A private
complaint was laid for the offence under Section 467 read
with Section 34 and Section 1208 1.P.C. which the High G
Court refused to quash under Section 482. This Court
allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings on the
ground that even on its own contentions in the complaint,
it would be a case of breach of trust or a civil wrong but
no ingredients of criminal offences were made out. On H
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A those facts and also due to the relation of the settler, the -J
mother, the appellant and his wife, as the son and
daughter-in-law, this Court interfered and allowed the
appeal. Therefore, the ratio therein is of no assistance to
the facts in this case. It cannot be considered that this
B Court laid down as a proposition of law that in every case
the court would examine at the preliminary stage whether
there would be ultimate chances of conviction on the basis
of allegation and exercise of the power under Section 482
or Article 226 to quash the proceedings or the charge-
c sheet."

Thus, the judgment in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia (supra)
does not lay down a law of universal application. Even as per
the law laid down therein, the Court can not examine the facts/
evidence etc. in every case to find out as to whether there is
D sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in '
conviction. The ratio of Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia (supra)
is applicable in cases where the Court finds that the dispute
involved therein is predominantly civil in nature and that the
parties should be given a chance to reach a compromise e.g.
E matrimonial, property and family disputes etc. etc. The superior
Courts have been given inherent powers to prevent the abuse
of the process of court where the court finds that the ends of
justice may be met by quashing the proceedings, it may quash
the proceedings, as the end of achieving justice is higher than
F the end .of merely following the law. It is not necessary for the
court to hold a fullfledged inquiry or to appreciate the evidence,
collected by the Investigating Agency to find out whether the
case would end in conviction or acquittal.
Discussion in the case on hand
G
19. In the light of the above principles, let us consider
whether there are sufficient materials available in the
prosecution case; particularly, in the FIR, chargesheet and
statement of witnesses insofar as respondents herein are
H concerned. No doubt, in the FIR, the complainant has not
PADAL VENKATA RAMA REDDY @ RAMU v. KOWURI 641
SATYANARAYANA REDDY [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

named these respondents as accused. In Column No. 5 of the A
FIR under heading "Alleged cause", it is stated that "Alleged to
have been sustained injuries on the head, face due to assault
by unknown persons near J.K. Kalyana Mandapam,
Rajahmundry today (07.11.2007) around 7:00 p.m." Though the
complainant has not specified any name, he had asserted that B
~
while taking a turn from J.N. Road to J.K. Gardens, some
unknown persons kept their maroon color Scorpio car came
across his way at around 7:30 p.m. and about 10 persons got
down from it, while 5 others from auto armed with iron rods and
sticks and they hit the glass on his side to stop him while he c
was driving the car. It was also asserted that when he;put down
the door glasses, those persons sprinkled chilly powder\ on them.
After narrating further details, at the end, the complainant has
concluded that those persons conspired together and attacked
~
with an intention to kill him in a planned manner. It was further D
stated that they all appeared to be goondas and if his wife,
children and he himself will see them again, it would be possible
to identify them. If we read all the averments in the FIR, it cannot
be claimed that the complainant has not highlighted the incident
said to have been taken place on 07.11.2007 at around 7:00
p.m. E

20. The learned single Judge of the High Court, after
analyzing the FIR, chargesheet and the statement of witnesses
has concluded that the materials placed by the prosecution are
inadequate and ingredients of offence alleged by the F
prosecution have not been made out and quashed the
proceedings against respondents. We have already pointed out
the necessary assertion in the complaint and it is true that the
respondents were not named in the complaint.
> G
I 21. Now, let us consider whether the chargesheet and the
t statement of witnesses make out a prima facie case in the light
of principles which we have adverted to in the earlier
paragraphs. After furnishing all the details about the motive and
··-~---
_,,,, __
642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

..,
A circumstances, the investigating officer from the materials
collected has concluded:

"Under the above circumstances, A1 to A3 thought that
LW-1 has become insurmountable hurdle in securing seat
B in ensuring MLA elections. These and other causes of
political rivalry made them to determine to liquidate LW-1
and to achieve that object A1 and A2 invited A3 into their
fold who is a staunch supporter of LW-1 formerly and used
to help in all angles. In order to accomplish their desire of
getting rid of LW-1, five years ago LW-2S introduced A4
c to A1 and A2 as A1 and A2 are suffering a lot in collecting
debts regarding to fertilizers dealers. On that relation A1
and A2 contacted A4 of Emmiganur, Kurnool District to
implement the plan wit him kill LW-1. A4 having secured
~
AS to A12 and having received huge amount of Rs.
D 7,00,0001- for the purchase of car and for separate amount
for hiring the goondas from A 1 and A2 agreed to
implement the plan. On 1S.10.2007, A4 purchased a
Maroon colour Scorpio Car AP 02 M 49S9 from LW-26
and 27. The said car and the silver colour Bajaj Boxer
E Motorcycle No. AP S AG 9418 of A2 has been used in the
commission of offence.

AS having secured AS to A12 boarded in Raja
Rajeswari Lodge, Emmiganur, Kurnool District of for which
F LW-28 Yeluganti Perayya provided accommodation on
night of 31.10.2007 and from their, they came to
Rajahmundry on 01.11.2007. On 05.11.2007, A4 got
effected some minor repairs to the Scorpio Car at the
mechanic shed of LW-24 Anga Janaki Ram. LW-24 gave
receipt in the name of A4 for the collection of repairing
G
charges. Later, A1 and A2 kept A4 to A12 in their godown i
at their Poultry Farm at Komaripalem. LWs-22 and 23
Manda Subba Reddy and Challa Sreenu on the
instructions of A1 and A2 used to provide food drinks etc.,
to A4 to A12. It is at that godown, the accused conspired
H
•

PADAL VENKATA RAMA REDDY @ RAMU v. KOWURI 643
SATYANARAYANA REDDY [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
-i. .
and designed the plan to assault on LW-1. A 1, A2 provided A
Bajaj boxer motorcycle No. AP S AG 9418, Iron Rods and
Chili Powder to A4 to A 12. A3 was entrusted with the
responsibility giving information about the movement of
LW-1 to A 1 and A2 though the cell phone."
~ B
With regard to the conversation over cell phones, the following
r
materials are available in the chargesheet:

"LW-40 secured the cell phones call register of A1 to A3
from LW-36 who is Airtel Manager, on 07.11.2007 there
are 22 calls between A3 and A1 the calls made just before, c
during and after the offence LW-40 also secfured the
information from the Idea Manager and it show that A4 and
AS using cell phones for the relevant period. Thus it is
)
establishes that the conversation and communication
among A 1 to AS through cell phones to commit the offence D
. of murder of LW-1 .
On 14.12.2007 at 6:1S a.m. LW-40 arrested A3 at
Komaripalem at his house in the presence of mediators
LWs 32 and 33. A3 made a confession regarding the E
commission of offence along with the other accused. In
pursuance of the confession of A3, the Nokia Cell Phone
No. 9949131888 was seized in the presence of
mediators."
,;<I
22. About the conspiracy, after adverting to various F
instances the Investigating Officer has observed thus:-
.,
' "The fact of the case establishes that A1 and A2 conspired
with the other accused A3 to A12 to commit the offence
of murder of LW-1. LW-40 added Section of Law 120(b). G
Thus A1 to A12 hatched a plan to end the life of LW-1 but
t
·-, attempted the life of LW-1 and caused grievous injuries."

.. 23. The statement of the appellant (L.W.-1) is also pertinent
to note here. After narrating the entire incident, previous election
dispute, enmity etc. the appellant has stated: H
644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R

A "..... Keeping all these facts in view, I suspect that Mr. ..-
Sathibabu and Mr. Mukunda Reddy, or the MRO Mr.
Dummula Saburao (because of the grudge that I got the
ACP Trap laid) might have planned and got the attack
made on me with their men having hatched a Plan to kill
S me. I know the cell phones of Mr. Sathibabu, Mr. Mukunda
Reddy and Mr. Sabi. Cell number of Sabi is 9941931888,
Cell No. of Sathibabu is 9866617777, Cell No. of Mukunda
Reddy is 9849355777 ..... "

C In the same way, Padala Sunita, (L.W.-2) wife of Venkata Rama
Reddy, after narrating all the details like (L.W.-1) has stated:

"..... As my husband has been an obstruction to Kowuru
Satyanarayan Reddy and Mukunda Reddy they might have
or else, because of the ACS Trap the suspended MRO Mr.
D Dummula Saburao might have planned this attack on my
husband in order to kill him or else anybody else for any
reason might have planned this attack on my husband to
kill him. I can identify if I again see some of those persons
who attacked my husband and caused injuries to him ....."
E
24. At this moment, Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior
counsel, by pointing out that even if the above mentioned
materials are acceptable, however, the same does not
constitute "legal evidence" to proceed with the trial and hence
F the High Court was justified in quashing the same for which he
relied on a decision of this Court in Mis Zandu Pharmaceutical
Works Ltd. (supra). In that decision, the factual position
highlighted therein goes to show that the complainant had not
come to the court with clean hands. There was no explanation
whatsoever for the inaction between 1995 to 2001. Considering
G the factual position that the complaint was nothing but sheer
abuse of process of law and the High Court has to exercise its i
power under Section 482, this Court after finding that the High
Court has failed to exercise· such power quashed the
proceedings initiated by the complainant. On going through the
H
PADAL VENKATA RAMA REDDY @ RAMU v. KOWURI 645
· SATYANARAYANA REDDY (P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

factual position, we have no quarrel about the proposition laid A
down and ultimate order of this Court. That is not the position
in the case on hand. We have already pointed out various
principles and circumstances under which the High Court can
exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482. When
~
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High B
Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the
1
evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on reasonable
appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is
the function of the trial Judge The scope of exercise of power
under Section 482 and the categories of cases where the High c
Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable
offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice were set out in detail in Bhajan
Lal (supra). The powers possessed by the High Court under
J Section 482 are very wide and at the same time the power
D
requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful
to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on
sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised
to stifle a legitimate prosecution. It would not be proper for the
High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light
of all the probabilities in order to determine whether conviction E
would be sustainable and on such premise arriving at a
conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. In a
z. proceeding instituted on a complaint, exercise of inherent
;,;
powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case
in which complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, F
j

vexatious or oppressive. There is no need to analyse each and
every aspect meticulously before the trial to find out whether the
case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has
to be read as a whole. The statement of witnesses made on
oath to be verified in full and materials put forth in the G
~ chargesheet ought to be taken note of as a whole before
' arriving any conclusion. It is the material concluded during the
investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate
of the accused persons.
H
646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A 25. On going through the entire complaint, materials
collected and stated in the form of chargesheet, statement of
witnesses LW-1 and LW-2 and by conjoint reading of all the
above materials, it cannot be presumed that there is no legal
and acceptable evidence in support of prosecution. In the light
B of the principles enunciated in various decisions which we have
noted in the earlier paras, we are satisfied that the High Court
has exceeded its power in quashing the criminal proceedings
on the erroneous assumption that the ingredients of the offence
alleged by the prosecution has not been made out. The High
C Court has also committed an error in assuming that with the
materials available, the prosecution cannot end in conviction.

26. For the above reasons and in the light of the materials
which we have discussed, we are unable to sustain the
conclusion arrived at by the High Court. The impugned order
D quashing the criminal proceedings against the Respondent
Nos. 1-3, i.e. A1-A3 in S.C. No. 175 of 2010 on the file of the
1st Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, arising
out of P.R.C. No. 14 of 2008 on the file of the llnd Additional
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajahmundry is set aside. The
E trial Court is directed to proceed with the case against the
respondents in accordance with law. The criminal appeal is
allowed.
D.G. Appeal allowed.