Holding

Availing revision under Section 399 does not bar invoking Section 482, but the High Court cannot act as a second revisional court and must not assess evidence; it may interfere only where the proceeding is an abuse of process or the interests of justice demand it.

Summary

Ganesh Narayan Hedge filed a complaint under Section 500 IPC alleging defamation by S. B. Bangarappa and two others. The Magistrate, after taking evidence, framed charges, which were challenged by a revision petition under Section 399 before the Sessions Judge, who dismissed it. The respondents then approached the Karnataka High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, which quashed the charge on the ground that the complaint was frivolous and motivated by political rivalry. The Supreme Court held that while a party may still invoke Section 482 after a revision, the High Court cannot act as a second revisional court and must not assess the evidence or substitute its view for that of the trial magistrate. Consequently, the High Court’s quashing was beyond its jurisdiction and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the order and directing the case to proceed according to law.

Issues considered

The effect of a revision under Section 399 on the availability of the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482.
Whether the High Court can act as a second revisional court after the Sessions Judge has declined revision.
Whether the High Court may examine the merits of the evidence and the correctness of the charge framed while exercising Section 482.
Whether a delay of twelve years bars the continuation of the criminal complaint.
Whether the complaint constitutes an abuse of process, being frivolous, vexatious or oppressive.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 244, s. 245, s. 246, s. 399(3), s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 500

Subjects

Section 399Section 482inherent powersrevisionquashing of chargedefamationdelayabuse of processcriminal procedure

Judgment

i \

SH. GANESH NARYAN HEDGE A
v.
SH. S. BANGARAPPA AND ORS.

APRIL 20, 1995

[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] B

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973·:

Sections 399 (3) & 482-Second Revision Application by the same
party-Remedy u/s 399 does not bar a person from invoking the inherent C
power of High Court-High Court not to act as second revisional court in the
garb of exercising inherent powers-High Court not to go into appreciation of
evidence while exercising imperent power and specificallrWhen first
revisional court denied inteiference.

Complaint not to be disallowed to be proceeded with on the ground of D
delay of 12 year;--When complainant not responsible for delay-Moreover
when such contention not raised before High Court-lnteiference of Superior
ccwts at initial or interlocutory stages of criminal trial-Deprecated.

A complaint was filed by appellant against 3 respondents u/s 500 E
!PC. Charge were framed by Magistrate, recording the reasons thereof.

Revision before the Additional sessions Judge, against the order of
tbe Magistrate, was preferred, which was dismissed holding that framing
of the charges by the Magistrate could be interfered with by the revisional
court only when it is fonnd that the order of the Magistrate is illegal, F
capricious or perverse.

High Court was approached u/s 482 CR. P.C. praying for quashing
of the charge. Single Judge allowed the petition quashing the charge on
merits, against which the present appeal has been filed. G
Allowing the appeal, this conrt

HELD : 1.1. Availing of the remedy of the revision to the Sessions
Jndge U/s 399 does not bar a person from invoking the power of the High
Conrt u/s 482. [556-C] H
549
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A 1.2. The High Court cau not act as a second Revisional Court under
the grab of exercising inherent powers. While exercising its inherent powers
in such a matter it should be conscious of the fact that the Sessions Judge
has declined to exercise bis power ofrevision in the matter. The High Court
should interfere only where it is satisfied that if the complaint is allowed to
be proceeded with, it would amount to abuse of process of court or that the
B interests of justice otherwise call for quashing of the charges. [556-C, DJ

Mrs. Dhanlaxmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar & Ors. AIR (1990) SC4921 and
State of Bihar v.MuradAli Khan and others, [1988J 4 SCC 655, referred to.

C 1.3. In this case High Court has gone beyond the purview of section
482 in quashing the charge as it has not been held that the evidence
adduced by the complaint, oral or documentary, if unrebutted, would not
have warranted the conviction of the accused within the meaning of section
245 (1), nor has it held that on evidence adduced, the Magistrate could not
have reasonably formed an opinion that there is ground for presuming
D that the accused bas committed an offence as contemplated by section 246
(1). [558-B, CJ

1.4. While acting under section 482 and that too after the Sessions
Judge has declined to interfere in the matter, the High Court ought not to
E have entered the arena of appreciation of evidence, nor should it have
recorded a finding. [559-H, 560-AJ

2.1. As regards the claim that after a period of twelve years, the
matter should not be allowed to be proceeded with, the court is of the
opinion that complainant is certainly not responsible for this delay.
F Moreover, this contention does not appear to have been raised before the
High Court. [560-CJ

2.2. Due to various reasons, criminal trial in our country excel in
slow motion and this slow motion becomes slower when politically powerful
G or rich and infiuential persons figure as accused FIRs are quashed,
charges are quashed, interlocutory orders are interfered with and at every ·
step there will be revisions and applications for quashing and writ peti·
tions. In short no progress is ever allowed to be made. [560-D, E]

It is sad to note that repeated admonitions of this court have not
H deterred superior courts from interfering at initial or interlocutory stages
GANESH NARAYAN HEDGEv. S.BANGARAPPA (B.P.JEEVANREDDY,J.] 551

of criminal cases. Such interference should be only in exceptional cases A
where the interests of justice demand it; it cannot be matter of course.
[560-FJ
Justice Krishna Iyer's concurring view in Re - The Special Court Bill,
1978 [1979) 1 sec 380, referred to.
B
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
564 of 1995.

/ From the Judgment and Order dated 16.6.92 of the Karnataka High
Court in Crl. P. No. 1069 of 1991.

D. Krishnan, Rajesh Mahale, P.Mahale and K.K. Gupta for the
c
Appellant.

G.N. Sehagiri Rao, A. Nagabhushanam, P.K. Rao and C.S.S Rao for
the Respondents.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
-f
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Leave granted. Heard counsel for both
the parties.

The appeal arises from the judgment and order of a learned Single E
Judge of the Karnataka High Court quashing the charge framed by the
learned Magistrate.

A complaint was filed by the appellant against the three respondents
herein under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. After receiving the
evidence of the prosecution as contemplated by Section 244, the learned F
Magistrate framed the charge against the respondents under Section 500
of the Indian Penal Code. While framing the charge, the learned
Magistrate has recorded his reasons therefor. In this order, he referred to
the objections raised by the accused and his reasons for rejecting the same.
The learned Magistrate observed : "(O)n going through the evidence
adduced before court by the complainant at this stage, I am of the con- G
sidered opinion that there exist grounds to frame charge against A.1 to 3
for the offence punishable U/s. 500 I.P.C." The first respondent preferred
a Revision (Criminal Revision Petition No. 104 of 1989) before the First
Additional Sessions Judge, Hubli against the order of the learned
Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the Revision observing H
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R.

A that inasmuch as the learned Magistrate has framed the change on a
consideration of the evidence adduced by the complainant, oral and I...
documentary, and on being satisfied that there was a prima facie case made
out against the accused, his order is not liable to be interfered with in
Revision. He observed that a Revisional Court can interfere with the order
of the trial magistrate framing charges only where it finds that the order
B of the trial magistrate is illegal, capricious or perverse. Thereupon the first
respondent approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure. Code praying for the quashing of the charge. The learned Single
Judge allowed the petition on the following basis :

c "From the discussion made above, it has to be said that the
approach of the Courts below in ordering to frame charge against
the petitioner and the other two accused for an offence punishable
under Section 500 !PC is the resultant of non- application of mind
to the material available on record and also resultant of incorrect
exercise of jurisdiction conferred. The Courts below should have
D
borne in mind that a person can be charged only when the allega-
tions alleged against him are established prima facie and not
otherwise, because in criminal cases the Courts must be very
cautious and careful before proceeding to frame charge as un-
necessary framing of charge on the one hand may result in affecting
E the persons liberty and on the other hand cause continuous and
unnecessary harassment, as it has happened in the instant case.

From the allegations made in the complaint and the intention
to prosecute the accused by pursuing the complaint the material
F placed on record and the information gathered at the trial it is
clear that it is a matter of mere prestige for both the parties who
according to their own version belong to different political faiths.
It is not a genuine case of one making any implltat~on against the
other or the other being defamed or hiE reputation lowered in the
estimation of the public. This prolonged and protracted litigation
G and harassment to both the parties would have been ended in the
beginning itself if the courts below had taken into consideration
the effect of Section 245 Cr. P.C. and its applicability to the
necessary material on record keeping in mind the basis of the
complaint, the admissibility of the documents in evidence and the
H circumstances and context in which the alleged imputations were
GANESH NARAYANHEDGEv. S. BANGARAPPA [B.P.JEEVANREDDY,J.) 553

made by the petitioners." A
The lear.1ed Judge quashed the charge not only with respect to the
first respondent-accused, who alone was the petitioner before him, but also
with respect to Respondents 2 and 3 (Accused 2 and 3 respectively), who
had neither filed a Revision before the Sessions Judge nor had applied to B
the High Court for quashing the charge.

The complainant-appellant, Shri Ganesh Narayan Hedge, says that
be belongs to a highly reputed and well-known family of North Kanara
district whose main ·occupation is agriculture and sericulture. Some mem-
bers of the family are running a rice mill and one of the sons of the C
complainant is running a chemical factory. The complainant says that he is
the founder and President of various ·co-operative and educational institu-
tions and that he is also the founder-President of Sabakari Shikshan
Pr..Sarak Samitbi, Siddapur and is connected with certain other educational
societies and banks. He says that by sincere and selfless work done in these D
institutions he bas acquired a high status and position in .the society and
that though be is the cousin of Shri Ramakrishna Hedge, the former Chief
Minister of Karnataka, he is not asso'Ciated with bis political party. Accord-
ing to the complainant, the first respondeni-accused is an active politician.
During the relevant period, be was the President of a political party' called
'Kranthiranga'. The first respondent aspired.to become the Chief Minister E
of Karnataka but he was frustrated in bis efforts by Shri Ramakrishna
Hedge who became the Chief Minister. The first respondent was, there-
fore, waiting for an opportunity to tarnish the image of Shri Ramakrishna
Hegde. Shri Ramakrishna Hegde contested to the Legislative Assembly
from Kamakpura Constituency. The first respondent set-up bis eandidate p
against Shri Hedge.-ln the course of the election campaign; · tb,e first
respondent held a press conference on April 28, 1983 at bis residence at
Bangalore. Respondents 2 and 3 who are the Editor and Chief Reporte~
respectively of the newspaper "Samyukta Karnataka", a daily, also attended
the press conference. The first respondent made scandalous and. false·
imputations against the complainant during the said press conference and G
requested the correspondents to publish the same in their newspapers. The
news item as published in "Samyukta Karnataka" daily (in it Hubli edition)
reads thus:

"Involvement of Hegde's Brother in Rice smuggling"? H
554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R.
..
A "Bangalore • 28, Sri S. Bangarappa the President of Karnataka
Krantiranga, has accusec to day that Sri Ganesh Hegde the brother
of the Chief Minister Sri Ramakrishna Hegde is involving in
smuggling of rice to Goa. Talking at a press conference, he said
that the authorities are not dared to take action against the mill
owner Shri Ganesh Hegde."
B
(Translation from Kannada)

The complainant submitted that the said imputation is false to the
knowledge of the first respondent and was made with intention to defame
'
C and harm the reputation of the complainant. The allegation of smuggling
of rice levelled against the complainant is absolutely false and that the said
false news item has lowered the prestige and reputation of the complainant
and his family in the eyes of the public His case is that he is not the bother
'
of Shri Ramakrishna Hegde as made out in the news item but only a cousin.

D The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that th~ framing of
charge by the Magistrate is neither misdirected in law nor can it be said
that there was no evidence before him upon which he could have formed
an opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has com-
mitted the offence within the meaning of Section 246{1). The learned
Magistrate, it is submitted, considered the oral and documentary evidence,
E the decisions cited by both the sides and under a reasoned order rejected
the objections raised. by the first respondent and framed the charge. The
learned Sessions Judge dismissed the Revision filed by the first respondent
holding that the learned Magistrate has acted ptoperly and in accordance
with law in framing the charge and that there arc no grounds for interfering
F with his orders. A second Revision does not lie under the Code, and though
an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not
barred, the High Court cannot sit and act as the second Revisional Court
while exercising the powers under Section 482. This provision can be
invoked only where there is an abuse of process of Court or otherwise to
G secure the ends of justice. Leaned counsel complained that the learned
Single Judge has examined the matter as if he were an appellant court and
quashed the charge on the approach and that he has exceeded his juris-
diction in doing so and in interfering at an interlocutory stage.

Shri Sheshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the first respondent justified
H the reasoning and conclusion of the learned Single Judge. He submitted
GANESHNARAYANHEDGEv.S.BANGARAPPAIB.P.JEEVANREDDY,J.J 555

that the complaint is the result of political vendetta, that it is not a genuine A
grievance and that the first respondent was not acting out of any extraneous
motives in making the statement complained of. Learned counsel submitted
that the first respondent is an active politician, that subsequently he has
also become the Chief Minister of Karnataka and that he made the said
statement under the bonaftde belief that it is true. He made the said B
statement, submitted the learned counsel, in good faith and in public
interest. The first respondent was not actuated by any motives of personal
gain or personal animosity. Learned counsel further submitted that the said
publication was in the year 1983, that twelve years have passed by since
then and that any interference at this distance of time may not be called C
for in the interests of justice.

The complaint has been tried, it is stated, according to the warrant
procedure, at the request of the first respondent, Section 244(1) provides
that "(W)hen, in any warrant-case instituted otherwise than on a police
report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, the D
Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence
as may be produced in support of the prosecution." Section 245(1) says that
"(I)f, upon taking all the evidence referred to in section 244, the magistrate
considers, for reason to be recorded, that no case against the accused has
been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the E
Magistrate shall discharge him." Section 246(1) then says "(l)f, when such
evidence has been taken, or at any previous stage of the case, th~
magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused
has committee an offence hiable under this Chapter, which such magistrate
is competent to try, and which in his opinion, could b~ adequately punished F
by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused."

Section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers upon the
Sessions Judge the power to revise any order made by the Magistrate but
sub-section (3) thereof declares at the same time that " (W) here any G
application for revision is made by or on behalf of any person before the
Sessions Judge, the decision of the Sessions Judge thereon in relation to
such person shall be final and no further proceedings by way of revision at
the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court or any
other Court." H
556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A Section 482 of the Code saves the inherent powers of the High Court.
It reads :

"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
B to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process
of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
'
While it is true that availing of the remedy of the revision tc the
Sessions Judge under Section 399 does not bar a person from invoking the
C power of the High Court under Section 482, it is equally true that the High
Court should not act as a second Revisional Court under the garb of
exercising inherent powers. While exercising its inherent power in such a
matter it must be conscious of the fact that the learned Sessions Judge has
declined to exercise his revisory power in the matter. The High Court
D should interfere only where it is satisfied that if the complaint is allowed
to be proceeded with, it would amount to abuse of process of Court or that
the interests of justice otherwise call for quashing of the charges. A few
decision of this Court may usefully be referred at this stage. In Mrs.
Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar& Ors, AIR (1990) S.C. 494 this Court
stated in a case of similar nature :
E
'Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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
F in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is
frivoluous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the
complaint do not constitute the oflen~ uf~h cognizance is
taken by the Magistrate it is open to be High Court to quash the
same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is
not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis
G of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end
in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If
it ap;>ears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the
statement on oath of the complainant the ingredients of the of-
fence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that
H the complaint is ma/a fide frivolous or vexatious, in that event there
GANESHNARAYANHEDGEv. $. BANGARAPPA [B.P.JEEVANREDDY,J.] 557

would be no justification for interference by the High Court. A
The High Court without proper appliption of the principles
that have been laid down by this Court in Sharda Prasad Sinha v.
State of Bihar, (1977) 2 SCR 357 = AIR (1977) SC 1754, Trilok
Sinha v. Satya Deo Tripatlti, (1980) Cri Ll 822, AIR (1979) SC850 B
and Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Purshotam Das Jhunjunwala,
(1983) 1 SCR 895 = AIR (1983) SC 158 proceeded to analyse the
case of the complainant in the light of all the probabilities in order·
to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable· and on
such premises arrived at a conclusion that the proceedings are t.o
be quashed against all the respondents. The High Court was clearly C
in error in assessing the material before it and concluding that the
complaint cannot be proceeded with. We find there are specific
allegations in the complaint disclosing the ingredients of the of-
fence taken cognizance of. It is for the complainant to substantiate
the allegations by evidence at a later stage. In the absence of D
circumstances to hold prima facie that the complaint is frivolous
when the complaint does disclose the commission of an offence
there is no justification for the High Court to interfere.'

To the same effect is the holding in another decision in State of.Bihilr E
v. Murad Ali Khan & Ors., (1988) 4 S.C.C. 655. This Court said :

"It is trite that jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr. P.C., which saves
the inherent power of the High Court, to make such order as may
be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court' or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, has to be exercised spar- F
ingly and with circumspection. In exercising that jurisdiction· the
High Court should not embark upon an enquiry whether the
allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence
or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate when the
evidence comes before him. Though it is neither possible nor·
advisable to lay down any inflexible rules to regulate that jurisdic- G
tion, one thing, however, appears clear and it is that when the High
Court is . called upon to exercise this jurisdiction to quash a
proceeding at the stage of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an
offence the High Court is guided by the allegations, whether those
allegations, set out in the complaint or the charge-sheet, do not in H
558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R.

A I.aw constitute or spell out any offence and that resort to criminal
proceedings would, in the circumstances, amount to an abuse of
the process of the court or not".

Examined from the above stand point, it would be evident that the
B learned Single Judge of the High Court has really gone beyond the purview
of Section 482 in quashing the charge. He has not held that the evidence
adduced by the complainant, oral and documentary, if unrebutted, would
not have warranted the conviction of the accused within meaning of Section
245(1) nor has he held that on the evidence adduced, the learned
Magistrate could not have reasonably formed an opinion that there is
C ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, as
contemplated by Section 246 (1). The learned counsel for the respondent
has laid great stress upon the observations of the learned Magistrate in
Para 26 of his order, which reads : "A.1 has challenged the evidenet; of all
these witnesses generally and more particularly of the evidence of P.W.l
D the complainant. In my opinion, at his stage, the evidentiary value of the
documents and creditability of witnesses cannot be considered in view of
the settled principle by Supreme Court of India in the decisions cited
supra. All the contentions advanced on behalf of accused persons, could
be weighed at the time of final disposal of the matter. Therefore I am
rather constrained to refrain from examining any of the contentions can-
E vassed for the accused or considering the repercussions made of cross
examination of witnesses, lest any observations made by me may prejudice
either of the parties ·at the time of trial. Further the evidence referred to
in Section 245, relates to evidence before charge. Therefore I do not
propose to examine any of the contentions urged for accused No. 1 during
F the course of arguments and about the decisions cited at the Bar on behalf
of accused persons."

The learned counsel contended that the above observations indicate
that the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind to the evidence before
him at all and that he has mechanically framed the charge. We do not think
G that the learned counsel is right. The said observations were made by the
learned Magistrate with reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in
Akbar Dar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1982] SCC (Criminal) 148
referred to in preceding para 21 and should not be read in isolation. A
reading of the order does show that the learned Magistrate has considered
H the oral and documentary evidence at length and finally expressed his
GANESHNARAYANHEDGEv.S.BANGARAPPA(B.P.JEEVANREDDY,J.J 559

opinion in paragraph 3() thu. : A
'On going through the evidence adduced before court by the
complainant at this stage. I am of the considered opinion that there
exist grounds to frame charge against A. 1 to 3 for the offence
punishable U/s. 500 l.P.C. In coming to conclusion that charge
should be framed against A-1 to 3, I should not be understood that B
I have expressed any opinion if made by me during the course of
discussions will not come in the way of either parties at the final
disposal of the case on merits. Therefore, for these reasons, I
answer the point in the 'AFFIRMATIVE'."
c
The learned Sessions Judge who examined the order of the learned
Magistrate has also expressed the opinion that since the magistrate has
framed the charge on a proper consideration of oral and documentary
evidence and on forming .the requisite opinion, no interference is called
for. As against this, the judgment of the High Court shows that it has D
entered into the merits of the case and pronounced upon the truth and
correctness of the complaint and the defence, as would be evident from
the following observations :

Jn Para 23 the learned Judge states that the oral evidence should
have been considered alongwith the documentary evidence and that if that E
had been done, the learned magistrate, would have came to the conclusion
that the imputation made by the accused is "neither intentional nor it
amounted in lowering the reputation of the complainant in the estimation
of general public and the context in which such a statement was made. '
In Para 24 the learned Judge states that the courts below has not con-
sidered the evidence of the witnesses properly and that it has merely picked F
out those portions from evidence which are against the accused and relied
upon them for framing the charge. In Para 25 the learned Judge observed
that the documents and statements of the witnesses were not property
taken into consideration by the courts below and that the reasons assigned
by the learned Magistrate for framing the charge are not convincing in G
nat:rre. Then in Para 26, the learned Judge says that for the reasons given
by him, the courts below must be held to have acted without applying their
mind to the relevant material. Jn Para 27, learned Judge records a fmding
that the complaint was more a matter of mere prestige for both the parties
who belong to different political parties and that it is not a genuine
proceeding. In our opinion, while acting under Section 482 and that too H
560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R.

A after the learned Sessions Judge had declined to interfere in the matter,
the High Court ought not to have entered the arena of appreciation of
evidence nor should it have recorded a finding that the complaint was the
result of political differences or that it was more a matter of prestige than
a genuine proceeding. The last-mentioned conclusion is drawn from the
averments in the complaint, from the fact that the complainant is pursuing
B the complaint and from the ipse dixit of the accused; we are unable to
appreciate this reasoning.

With respect to the contention of the learned counsel for the respon-
dents that after a period of twelve years, the matter should not be allowed
to be proceeded with we must say that the complainant is certainly not
C responsible for this delay. The learned counsel did not even made such a
suggestion. Moreover, this contention does not appear to have been raised
before the High Court. (The judgment of the High Court is dated 16.6.92.)
We do not know who is responsible for this delay. As observed by Krishna
Iyer, J. in in Re. : The Special Courts Bill. 1978 (1979] 1 S.C.C. 380 at page
D 442: "(I)t is common knowledge that currently in our country criminal
courts excel in slow-motion. The procedure is dilatory, the dockets are
heavy, even the service of process is delayed and still more exasperating,
there are appeals upon appeals and revisions and supervisory jurisdictions,
baffling and baulking speedy termination of prosecutions. .... ". The slow-mo-
tion becomes much slower-motion when politically powerful or rich and
E influential persons figure as accused. F .I.Rs. are quashed. Charges are
quashed. Interlocutory orders are interfered with. At every step, there will
be revisions and applications for quashing and writ petitions. In short, no
progress is ever allowed to be made. And if ever the case reaches the stage
or trial after all these interruptions, the time would have taken its own toll
: the witnesses are won over; evidence disappears; the prosecution loses
F interest - the result is an all too familiar one. We are sad to say that
repeated admonitions of this Court have not deterred superior courts from
interfering at initial or interlocutory stages or criminal cases. Such inter-
ference should be only in exceptional cases where the interests of justice
demand it; it cannot be a matter of course. In the circumstances, we cannot
G acceded to the said contention.

For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the
High Court is set aside. The case shall now proceed according to law and
as expeditiously as possible in the circumstances of the case.

D.KT. Appeal allowed.