Holding

The High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction; it cannot rely on the investigation report or the pending divorce petition to quash an FIR, and the FIR must be examined solely on its own allegations.

Summary

The appellant, a wife, filed an FIR under Sections 498A and 406 IPC alleging dowry harassment and cruelty after leaving her matrimonial home. The husband filed a divorce petition, and the respondents moved the High Court to quash the FIR under its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The High Court quashed the FIR, relying on the police investigation report and the pending divorce suit. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by going beyond the FIR allegations and by considering the investigation report before it was filed before the magistrate, and by treating the pending civil divorce as a ground to quash criminal proceedings. The Court emphasized that Section 482 must be exercised sparingly and only when the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence. Consequently, the order quashing the FIR was set aside and the magistrate was directed to proceed with the criminal case.

Issues considered

The High Court may quash an FIR under Section 482 only on the basis of the allegations in the FIR and not by going beyond them.
Whether the High Court can consider a police investigation report before it is filed before the competent magistrate while exercising power under Section 482.
Whether the pendency of a civil divorce petition can be a ground for quashing a criminal FIR.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 173(2), s. 482
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955s. 13
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 406, s. 498A

Subjects

Section 482quashing FIRinvestigation reportcivil-criminal parallel proceedingsdivorce petition498A IPC406 IPCinherent powers of High Courtjurisdiction

Judgment

A PRATIBHA
v.
RAMESHWARI DEVI AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 17, 200T

B (A.KMATHURANDTARUNCHATIERJEE,JJ.)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 :

s. 482~lnherent Power of High Court-Jn quashing FIR-Scope and
C ambit of-Held : Power. u!s 482 has to be exercised sparingly and in the
rarest of rare cases-While exercising such power, Court cannot quash FIR
by going beyond the allegations made in FIR or by relying on extraneo.!'s
considerations viz. on the Report of the Police investigation. __ _

D ss. 173(2) and 482-Jnvestigation Report-Direction of High Court to
file the same before it-Jn exercise of its power u!s 482 Cr.P.C.::_Held: Such
direction is beyond the power of High Court-Such Report has to be
forwarded to the concerned Magistate.

Court Proceedings-Civil vis-a-vis Criminal proceedings-Held.; Both
E the proceedings are separate and independent-Pendency of civil proceeding
cannot bring a criminal proceeding to an end-Even if both arise o~t of the
same set offacts.

Appellant was married to respondent No. 2. Appellant left her
matrimonial home. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 (husband) filed a petition for
F divorce. Six months after leaving the matrimonial home, and also after filing
of the divorce petition, appellant (wife) lodged an FIR alleging offences u/s
498A and 406 IPC against the respondents. ~espondents seeking quashing
of the same in application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. During pendency of the petition,
final Investigation Report was submitted to the High Court. High Court on
the basis of the Report concluded that no offence u/s 498A and 406]PC was
G made out, and it also held that quashing was necessary in view of.pending
divorce petition.

The question for consideration, in appeal to this Court was (1) whether L
the High Court, while quashing the FIR in exercise of its inherent powers
H 1038
r

PRATIBHA v. RAMESHWARI DEVI 1039
u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was entitled to go beyond the complaint? (2) whether High A
Court was entitled to look into and consider the Investigation Report for
quashing the FIR, even before the same could be filed before the concerned
Magistrate?

Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
B
HELD: l. The power under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised
sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases. The present case did not warrant
such exercise by the High Court. (Para 10) (1050-H)

2. While exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not open to
the High Court to rely on the report of the investigating agency nor can it C
direct the report to be submitted before it as the law is very clear that the
report of the investigating agency may be accepted by the Magistrate or the
Magistrate may reject the same on consideration of the material on record.
High Court has erred in quashing the FIR on consideration of the investigation
report submitted before it even before the same could be submitted before the D
Mag.istrate. High Court in quashing the FIR in the exercise of its inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code by relying on the investigation report
and the findings made therein has acted beyond its jurisdiction. For the
purpose of finding out the commission of a cognizable offence, the High Court
was only required to look into the allegations made in the complaint or the
FIR and to conclude whether a prima facie offence had been made out by the E
complainant in the FIR or the complaint or not. (Para 9) (1050-D, E, F, G)

3. The Court is entitled to exercise its inherent jurisdiction for
quashing a criminal proceeding or an FIR when the allegations made in the
same do not disclose the commission of an offence and that it depends upon
the facts and circumstances of each particular case. (Para 6) [1044-G) F
State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha, (19821 1 SCC 561;
Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Anr., (1985) 2 SCC 370; Madhavrao Jiwaji
Rao Scindia and Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors., (1988) 1
SCC 692; State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan & Ors., (1988) 4 SCC 655 and G
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992( Suppl. 1SCC335, relied on.

4. High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
has gone beyond the allegations made in the FIR and has acted in excess of
its jurisdiction and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in quashing
the FIR by going beyond the allegations made in the FIR or by relying on H
1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
.; ' ~ I ~ •
[2.007] ,9 _S.C.R.

A extraneous considerations. In the facts and ~ircu,mstance of the case, the High
Court was ~ot justified in <!ra~ing an adverse inference against the appellant-
wife _f<!r !odging the ·FIR.b.elatedly i.e. six months after she had left the
matrimonial home. It is pertinent to note that the complaint was filed only
when all efforts .to return to the matrimonial home had failed and the·
B respondent No.2-husband had filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. That apart, filing ofa divorce petition in a Civil
Court cannot be a'grotind "to quash·criminal proceedings·under Section 482
Cr.P.C. Criminal and. Civil proceedings are separate' and independent and the
pendency ofa civil proceeding cannot bring to an·end ~criminal proceeding
even if they arise out of the same set of fads.
c (Para 8) (1046-H; '1047-A, B~ D, E)
•.'
5. High Court while exercising its.powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
was not justified in relying on the investigation report which was neither filed
before the Magistrate nor a copy of the same supplied to the appellant lligh
·Court has acted in excess of its j urisdietion by relying on the investigation
D report and the High Court was also wrong in directing the report to be -
submitted before it. It is for the investigatin'g agency fo'sub.riit the repo'tt to
the Magistrate. (Para 91 [1047-H; 1048-AI ' ' ·
' . . • -y
•-
6. In·view of Section I 73(2) Cr.P.C., it cannot be disputed that after
completion of the investigation, the officer-in-charge of the police station shall -
E forward the report not to the High Court where the proceedings under Section
482 i~ ~ending b~! to a ~Magistrate empowered}o take cognizance of the
offence on such police report Therefore, the High Court had acted beyond its
''-
power to direct the investigating agency to file the said report before it in the
exercise of power under Section 482 Cr; P.C. It was impermissible for the
p High Court to entertain the report of the investigating agency before the 5ame
could be forivarded and filed before the concerned Magistrate in compliance
with Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. (Para 9) (1048-D, C; 1050-B]
!~•. 1 141.._ • . ~ nl .. ·- ; 1 .. ~ ':• ..r•·r ·.. t ,,_. ~·\1' u,~ .. •~·r··.'

, MC.· Abraham and Anr. ov.··State of Maharashtra,' (20031. 2 SC:::C.649;
·1..
rAbhinandan •Jha v •.Dinesh Mishra, AIR (1968) SC 117 and UniOn ·of'bii:li<i v.
G .Prakash P.Hinduja and Anr.;.(2003)'6 SCCJ95; relied on.•it1t•·.~ -. ·f>'-t 1 '-~; •
) .l\ .' j-~ ~ 1. •, I~ j , ' ' ~ ~... f ' ·, • .. '

CRIMINA'71PP~LLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal. Appeal.1'10, 1242 of

2007. \ '~'t' •.-'•\.... -... , lU~ .,: ! I ~' • -· t~ I

From the .....Judgment
....[.,. , . . . . '
l'H
and Order
'~
'.
dated 14.9.2004
.~
i . ,- .. ,. • ,,,
of -the High_,,, Court
. . ••5
of ~ ~ .··t!~J-:,~ I ~

H Jud~,c~tu,re_fo_r.Raj astnan at Jaipur _Bench, JaiP.ur in S.B. C~i!Il}"}~!_-Mi~c ..~e.tit!on
1
- - 'No. 522 of2002.
PRA TIBHA v. RAMESHWARI DEVI [CHATTERJEE, J.] l 041

Amit Sharma, Poonam Chand and Anupam Lal Das for the Appellant. A
Aruneshwar Gupta and Annam D.N. Rao for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

TARUN CHATIERJEE, J. 1. Leave granted. B
· 2. This appeal by special leave is preferred against the judgment and
order dated 14th September, 2004 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
at Jaipur Bench, whereby the High Court had quashed an FIR dated 3 lst
December, 2001 lodged at the instance of the appellant in the exercise of its
inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter C
referred to as 'the Code'). The said FIR was registered by the complainant/
appellant (in shott "the appellant") against the accused/respondents (in short
"the respondents") for the alleged offences under Section 498-A and 406 of
IPC.

3. Before we take up the questions that were posed before us by the D
learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary at this stage to state the facts
giving rise to the filing of this appeal. Accordingly, the facts in a nutshell are
stated below :

4. The appellant had entered into wedlock with the respondent No.2 on
25th January, 2000. The respondent Nos. I, 3, 4 and 5 are the mother-in-law, E
brother-in-law, maternal father-in-law and the father-in-law of the appellant
respectively. The appellant left her matrimonial home on 25th May, 200 I with
her father and brother. In the FIR, the appellant alleged that during her stay
in her matrimonial home, she was subjected to harassment and cruelty by all
the respondents as they were dissatisfied with the articles that the appellant F
had brought as stridhan. The respondents also forced her to bring Rs.5 lacs
more in dowry from her father which she could not bring from her parents nor
could her parents afford to pay such a huge amount. The respondents also
did not allow the appellant to take back her ornaments and other articles,
which were gifted to her as stridhan when she left her matrimonial home. On
3 lst July, 2001, the husband, namely, respondent No.2 filed a petition before G
the Family Court praying for a decree for divorce on the ground of mental
cruelty. On 31st December, 2001, the appellant lodged an FIR No.22 l of2001
against the respondents for the alleged offences under Section 498A and 406
of IPC. This FIR was challenged by way of a criminal miscellaneous petition
under Section 482 of the Code in which the respondents prayed for quashing H
1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R.

A of the said FIR. The respondents had also obtained an order granting
~-
anticipatory bail from the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan on 8th
February, 2002. While the petition under Section 482 of the Code was pending,
a final investigation report was submitted on 13th February, 2004 in the High
Court. The High Court by the impugned order had quashed the· FIR No.221
of2001 on the basis of the report of the Investigating Officer submitted before
B it and concluded that no offence under Section 498A and 406 of the IPC was
made out by the appellant against the respondents. The High Court also
observed that the FIR must be quashed to avoid undue harassment and
mental agony to the respondents, more so when the divorce petition was still
pending before the Family Court. It is this order of the High Court, quashing
C the FIR in the exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code,
which is now under challenge before us in this appeal.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after considering
the materials on record and the complaint filed by the appellant under Sections
498A and 406 of the IPC, we are of the view that the High Court had exceeded
D its jurisdiction by quashing the FIR No.221 of 200 I in the exercise of its
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. Before we consider the scope
and power of the High Court to quash an Fl R in the exercise of its inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code even before the parties are permitted
to adduce evidence in respect of the. offences alleged to have been made
E under the aforesaid two sections (namely, Sections 498A and 406 ofIPC), we
may keep it on record. that two questions merit our determination in the
present case: - (i) whether the High Court while quashing the FIR in the
exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of.the Code was entitled to
go beyond the complaint filed by the complainant; and (ii) whether the High
Court was entitled to look into and consider the investigation report submitted
F by four officers of the rank of Dy. Superintendent of Police for quashing the
J......
FIR even before-the same could be filed before the concerned Magistrate.
Before we do that, we may first consider how and when the High Court, in
its inherent p6werS under Section 482 of the Code, would be justified in
quashing an FIR. It is at this stage appropriate to· refer Section 482 of the
G Code itself which runs as under:

"482. Saving of inherent powers 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 to prevent abuse of the process of any
H Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
PRATIBHA v. RAMESHW ARI DEVI [CHATTERJEE , J.] } 043

A bare look at this provision would show that while exercising such A
inherent powers, the High Court must be satisfied that either:-

(i) An order passed under the Code would be rendered ineffective;
or
(ii) The process of any court would be abused; or
B
(iii) The ends of justice would not be secured.

In State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha, [1982] l SCC 561,
Chandrachud, C.J. [as His Lordship then was] had observed that if the FIR
did not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the court would be
justified in quashing the investigation on the basis of the information as laid C
or received. In the same judgment, Justice A.N. Sen [as His Lordship then
was] who has written the main judgment, has laid down the legal propositions
as follows:

"...the legal position is well-settled. The legal position appears to be
that if an offence is disclosed, the Court will not normally interfere D
with an investigation into the case and will permit investigation into
the offence alleged to be completed; if, however, the materials do not
disclose an offence, no investigation should normally be permitted ....
Once an offence is disclosed, an investigation into the offence must
necessarily follow in the interests of justice. If, however, no offence E
is disclosed, an investigation cannot be permitted, as any investigation,
in the absence of any offence being disclosed, will result in
unnecessary harassment to a party, whose liberty and property may
be put to jeopardy for nothing. The liberty and property of any
individual are sacred and sacrosanct and the court zealously guards .
them and protects them. An investigation is carried on for the purpose F
). of gathering necessary materials for establishing and proving an
offence which is disclosed. When an offence is disclosed, a proper
investigation in the interests of justice becomes necessary to collect
materials for establishing the offence, and for bringing the offender to
book. In the absence of a proper investigation in a case where an G
offence is disclosed, the offender may succeed in escaping from the
consequences and the offender may go unpunished to the detriment
of the cause of justice and the society at large. Justice requires that
a person who commits an offence has to be brought to book and must
be punished for the same. If the court interferes with the proper
investigation in a case where an offence has been disclosed, the H
1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R.

A offence will go unpunished to the seriou~ detriment of the welfare of
the society and the cause·of justice suffers. It is on the basis of this
principle that the court normally does not interfere with the
investigation of a case where an offence has been disclosed ..... .
Whether an offence has been disclosed or not must necessarily depend
on the facts and circumstances of each particular case.... If on a
B consideration of the relevant materials, the court is satisfied that an
offence is disclosed, the court will normally not interfere with the
investigation into the offence and will generally allow the investigation
into the offence to be completed for collecting materials for proving
the offence".
c In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Anr., [19851,2 SCC 370, this Court·
at page 395 observed as follows:

"It is well settled by a long·course of decisions of this Court that for
the purpose of exercising its power under Section 482 Cr PC to quash
D a FIR or a complaint the High Court would have to proceed ,entirely
on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents
accompanying the same per se. ·It has no jurisdiction to examine the
correctness or otherwise of the allegations". [emphasis supplied]

In Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and Ors. v. Sambhajirao
E Chandroj irao A ngre and Ors., [ 1988] I SCC 692, this Court has reiterated the
same principle and laid down that when a prosecution at the initial stage is
asked to be' quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the
uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence.

Again in the case of State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan & Ors., [ 1988].
F 4 SCC 655, Venkatachaliah, C.J. [as His Lordship then was] has laid down that
the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised sparingly
and with circumspection and has observed that in exercising that jurisdiction,
the High Court should not embark upon an inquiry whether the allegations
in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not.

G 6. From the principles laid down in the abovementioned decisions, it is
clear that the Court is entitled to exercise its inherent jurisdiction for quashing
a criminal·proceeding or an FIR when the allegations made in the san:ie do not
disclose the commission of an offence and that i.t depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each particular case. We also feel it just and proper to refer
H to a leading decision of this court reported in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,
PRATIBHA v. RAMESHWARI DEVI [CHATTERJEE, J.] 1045
[1992] Suppl. I sec 335 in which this court pointed out certain category of A
~· cases by way of illustrations wherein the inherent power under Section 482
of the Code c~n be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The same are as follows :-

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in B
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out
a case !lgai~.st the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report' ancl other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable
offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section C
156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint
and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the
• commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. D
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable
offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation
is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as ·
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
E
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR.or complaint are so absurd
and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person
can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the F
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or
the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.
G
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with m'alafide
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.
7. Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind and considering the decisions H
1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R

A as referred to hereinearlier, let us now apply them in the facts of the present
case. But before we do that, it would be apt ·for us to consider the findings
arrived _at by the High Court for quashing the FIR which are as under: -

· (i) - The complainant-wife left the marital house with her father and
brother on 25th May, 2001. The Divorce Petition was filed by the
B husband on the ground of mental cruelty on 31st July, 200}. It was
only on 31st December, 200 I that the FIR for offences under
Sections 498A and 406 of IPC was lodged by the complainant-
~ife; · • - .- -
---t
(ii) A registered letter was sent to the appellant wife for receiving all
C her articles on 13th August, 2001 which was duly received by the
father o(the appellant;
(iii) The family court also issued directions to the appellant to receive
.,.. .. her articles on 2nd February, 2002 and the same were declined by
. .her;'
D · (iv)" rn- ·view- of the above and also "in view· of the detailed report
· ·suoinitted by the investigating officer, even prima facie no offence
under Section 498A and 406 IPC is made out ag~inst the
0 L ~

respondent; -
{v) The conduct of.the appellant wife was depreciable and there had
E been_ a continuing effort by her_ of avoiding the proceedings
before the Court; .
(vi) The appellant wife leveled false allegations against the Court itself
apart from adopting· all sorts of unhealthy tactics· by creating
gimmicks and scenes in the Court;
F
(vii) Merely because one of the respondents is a judicial officer and
others being his family members, it did not preclude them from
seeking justice from a court o(Jaw;
·(viii) The High Court is empowere~_to quash the FIR to avoid undue
harassment and mental agony to the respondents, more so when
G
. t~e divorce petition is still pending before the Family Court.

8. From a plilin reading of the findings arrived at by the High Court
while.quashing the FIR, it is ·apparent that t_he High Court had relied on
extraneous considerations and acted beyond the allegations made in the FIR _[_
H for quashing-the same in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section
1---

PRATIBHAv. RAMESHWARIDEVI [CHATTERJEE,J.] 1047
482 of the Code. We have already noted the illustrations enumerated in A
Bhajan Lal's case and from a careful reading of these illustrations, we are of
the view that the allegations emerging from the FIR are not covered by any
of the illustrations as noted hereinabove. For example, we may take up one
of the findings of the High Court as noted herein above. The High Court has
drawn an adverse inference on account of the FIR being lodged on 31st
December, 2001 while the appellant was forced out of the matrimonial home B
on 25th May, 2001. In our view, in the facts and circumstance of the case, the
High Court was not justified in drawing an adverse inference against the
) appellant- wife for lodging the FIR on 31st December, 2001 on the ground that
she had left the matrimonial home atleast six months before that. This is
because, in our view, the High Court had failed to appreciate that the appellant C
and her family members were, during this period, making all possible efforts
to enter into a settlement so that the respondent No.2-husband would take
her back to the matrimonial home. If any complaint was made during this
period, there was every possibility of not entering into any settlement with
the respondent No.2-husband. It is pertinent to note that the complaint was
filed only when all efforts to return to the matrimonial home had failed and D
the respondent No.2-husband had filed a divorce petition under Section 13
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. That apart, in qur view, filing of a divorce
petition in a Civil Court cannot be a ground to quash criminal proceedings
under Section 482 of the Code as it is well settled that criminal and civil
proceedings are separate and independent and the pendency of a civil E
proceeding cannot bring to an end a criminal proceeding even if they arise
out of the same set of facts. Such being the position, we are, therefore, of
the view that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482
of the Code has gone beyond the allegations made in the FIR and has acted
in excess of its jurisdiction and, therefore, the High Court was not justified
in quashing the FIR by going beyond the allegations made in the FIR or by F
relying on extraneous considerations.

9. This takes us to the second question which merits our determination,
namely whether the High Court was entitled to consider the investigation
report submitted before it by four officers of the rank of Dy. Superintendent
of Police even before the same could be filed before the concerned Magistrate. G
As noted herein earlier, a bare perusal of the judgment of the High Court
would also show that the High Court had relied on the investigation report
in quashing the FIR. Now, the question is whether the High Court while
exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code was justified in relying
on the investigation report which was neither filed before the Magistrate nor H
1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R.

A a copy of the same supplied to the appellant. In our view, the High Court has
acted in excess of its jurisdiction by relying on·the investigation report and
the High ·court was also wrong in directing the report to be submitted before
it. It is now well settled that it is for the investigating agency to submit the
report to the Magistrate. In this:coimection," we 1'may refer to sub-section- (2) 1
of Section 173 of the Code' which runs as under : · ·
..,_.!,,.._~ ·~ : .., :; - "'"" ~...... _ ' "•, • ., ~, "': I -; a t _ ~ f l •., ~

.1J ..,,"(i) As soon as· it ·is completed the officer in·charge of the police·
· . station shall forward to a:Magistrate empowered to take cognizance
: of the offence· on aipolice· report ..... ;....... :.(not necessary therefore
'· -
1' ( t· · • · • " ·"' •u inc.-· . . •
G 'From a ~are reading of thls provision, it can~ot b~ disputed that after .
completio!l· of the .investigation, .the officer-in-charge of:th~ polic~ station
shallJotFar<! the report.not to the,High Court where the.proceedings under,
Section 482 of.the Co.de is pending but to a Magistrate.empowered to f?ke
cognizance. 2f th~ offence on such· p,olice report. Therefore, !he High C<?urt
r).! had acted beyond its power.to ~irect th~,investigat!ng age~cy to.fi!e the ~a.id
report befor_e iUn the exercise of power under S~ction 482 of the Code.".The
pri:>~edure ·for s11b.mitti'1g an inyestigation r~port has been considere~ .~Y. d!is
Court in !~e case of.MC. !fbra~am and Anr. v. State of Maharcshtra, .. [20Q.3]
2.S~C 64~. While considering the law on the question as to when the report
of.the investigating agency shall be submitted before the Magistrate where
E the case is pending, an observation made in the case of Abhinandan Jha v.
Dinesh Mishra, AIR (1968) SC 117 was quoted with approval by 8.P.Singh; .,
J. in MC. Abraham's case (supra) with which we are also .in full agreement
and which is as .follows:.
I i fl• I~ ' k,, j t • l ;" ·~
·: Then· the. question is, what is the position, wh~n the Magistrate _is.
F dealing with a report submitted by the police, under Section 173, that·
r• .. · ; ' t • • 1 ' • r J i

, nq ca_sds m.a~€'. ou.t for, sending up an accused for trial, which report,
as we have already indicated, is called, in the area in question, as a
·final, report'? Even in those cases, if the Magistrate agrees !with~the ·
said report, he may accept the final report and ~lose the' pr~ceedings.
G ·'· But there may be,iilstances when the Magistrate ~ay:take"the· vJ1!\,,'~· ·,
.~ on a consideration of the final ·report, that the opihion rorr:i·elby,the~~
'· .. ··police is'not based.·ori.a-.f~ll and c~mplete inviistigati~n,cin'\vhJch:·
· , case:. in· our opinio~; th~· ·Magistrate 1will h~~e ample jurisdlction to
give directions to the police; under Section 156(3), to make a ·further .
'. \
' tl jf ~' 1- .• ·' ~.... ~.
L • ~- _...,.!'~"·... ....L' • ~ ~-·- _!'i:..~. 1·~:-"' •. ••'
°' ••

investigation. That is, 1f the Magistrate feels, after cons1dermg the
HI final report, that the investigatl~~ is unsatisfactory, or incomplete, or
PRATIBHA v. RAMESHWARIDEVI [CHATTERJEE,J.] 1049
that there is scope for further investigation, it will be open to the A
Magistrate to decline to accept the final report and direct the police
to make further investigation under Section 156(3). The police, after
such further investigation, may submit a charge-sheet, or, again submit
a final report, depending upon the further investigation made by them.
If ultimately, the Magistrate fonns the opinion that the facts, set out B
in the final report, constitute an offence, he can take cognizance of
the offence, under Section 190(1 ){b ), notwithstanding the contrary
opinion of the police, expressed in the final report.
>' The function of the Magistracy and the police, are entirely different,
and though, in the circumstances mentioned earlier, the Magistrate C
may or may not accept the report, and take suitable action, according
to law, he cannot certainly infringe (sic impinge) upon the jurisdiction
of the police, by compelling them to change their opinion, so as to
accord with his view.

Therefore, to conclude, there is no power, expressly or impliedly D
conferred under the Code, on a Magistrate to call upon the police to
submit a charge-sheet, when they have sent a report under Section
169 of the Code, that there is no case made out for sending up an
accused for trial."

This court in MC. Abraham's case (supra) observed in para 17 as E
under:

"The principle, therefore, is well settled that it is for the investigating
agency to submit a report to the Magistrate after full and complete
investigation. The investigating agency may submit a report findin~
the allegations substantiated. It is also open to the investigating F
agency to submit a report finding no material to support the allegations
made .in the first infonnation report. It is open to the Magistrate
concerned to accept the report or to order further enquiry. But what
is clear is that the Magistrate cannot direct the investigating agency
to submit a report that is in accord with his views. Even in a case
where a report is submitted by the investigating agency finding that G
no case is made out for prosecution, it. is open to the Magistrate to
disagree with the report and to take cognizance, but what he· cannot
do is to direct the investigating agency to submit a report to the effect
that the allegations have been supported by the material collected
during the course of investigation." H
1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 9 S.C.R.

A In·ourview, applying the principles laid down in the case of Abhinandan Jha
(supra) and MC:-Abrahim (supra) as indicated herein above, using the report
of the investigating agency for quashing the FIR- or a criminal proceeding
cannot be sustained. It was impermissible for the· High Court to entertain the
report of the investigating agency before the same could -be forwarded and
B filed before.the concerned Magistrate in compliance with Section 173(2) of the
Code. In Union of India v. Prakash P.Hinduja &-Anr., [2003] 6 SCC 195, this
Court in para 20 observed as follows : _.;

."Thus the legalposition is absolutely clear and also settled by judicial
authorities that the court would not interfere with the investigation or
·during the course of investigation which would mean fr~m the time
c of the lodging of the·First Information Report till the submission of
the report by the officer~in-charge ofthe·potice station in -court under
Section 173 (2)·Code, this field being:exclusively reserved for the
investigating agency/'

D Ther;fore, in view.of o~; discus~·ions made·h-erein above, whiie exercising
power unde~ Section 482 ~f the Cod~, it .is not. open 'to the High. Court to rely
on the report of the investigating agency nor can it -direct the -report to be
submitted before it as the law is very clear that the report of the investigating
agency may be accepted by the Magistrate or the Magistrate may reject the
same on consideration of the material on record. Such being the position, the
E ~eport of the investigating. ~gency. cannot be relied on by the High Court
while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code. Accordingly, we are
of the view that the High Court has erred in quashing the FIR on consideration
of ihe investigation report submitted before it even before the same.could be
submitted before the.Magistrate. For the reasons aforesaid, we are inclined
F to interfere with the order of.the High Court and ho~d that the High Court in
quashing the FIR in the exercise of its inherent powers under Sectfon 482 of
the Code by relying on the inve~tigation report and the findings made therein
has acted .beyond its -jurisdiction. For the purpose of finding out the
commission of a cognizable offence, the High Court was only req"uired to look
into the allegations made in the complaint or the FIR and to conclude whether
G a prima facie offence had been made out by the complainant in the F'IR ·or
the complaint or not. ·

. 10. Before parting with this judgment, we may also remind ourselves
that the power under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised sparingly
and in the rarest of rare cases. In our view, the present case did not warrant
H such exercise by the High Court. For the reasons aforesaid, we are unable to
PRA TIBHA v. RAMESHWARI DEVI [CHATTERJEE, J.] 1051
sustain the order of the High Court and the impugned order is accordingly A
set aside. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. The learned
Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law. It is
expected that the Magistrate shall dispose of the criminal proceedings as
expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of
communication of this judgment.
B
,. K.K.T. Appeal partly allowed.