STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.versusARUN GULAB GAWALI & ORS.

                   [2010] 10 S.C.R. 683


           STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.                        A
                             v.
             ARUN GULAB GAWALI & ORS.
            (Criminal Appeal No. 590 of 2007)
                   ·AUGUST 27, 2010
                                                              B I
    [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

      Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Petition under
- For quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against
accused - By the complainant as well as the accused - C
Complainant alleging that the police forced him to lodge the
complaint - Criminal proceedings quashed by High Court -
On appeal, held: The power of judicial review and the inherent
powers of court are to prevent miscarriage of justice and for
correcting some grave errors and to ensure that stream of D I
administration of justice remains clean and pure - The court,
while exercising inherent power, has to act cautiously before
proceeding to quash a prosecution - On facts, High Court was
not right in quashing the criminal cases on the ground that
due to lack of support of the complainant, the trial would be a E
futile exercise - Such case needed further investigation -
However, the circumstances of the instant case suggest that
the allegation of complainant against the police was correct
- Thus, it was a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482.
                                                                 F
    One of the respondents filed a complaint against
respondent No. 1 alleging extortion. Thereafter, the
respondent-complainant filed an application before
Metropolitan Magistrate, stating that he did not want to
proceed with the complaint. .The court rejected the said      G      1




application. Thereafter the complainant and his wife filed
a writ petition before the High Court alleging harassment
by the police and seeking direction for removal of police

                            683'                              H      !
    684      SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A protection and asking for a judicial inquiry against the
  police, alleging that the complainant was forced by the
  police to lodge the complaint. The High Court disposed
  of the writ petition. The complainant then filed another
  writ petition before the High Court fo~ quashing of the
B criminal case against respondent No. 1. Respondent No.
  1 also filed writ petitions seeking quashing of criminal
  cases against him. The High Court allowed the writ
  petitions and quashed the criminal cases against
  respondent No.1. Therefore, the instant appeal was filed.
c         Dismissing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1.1 The power of quashing criminal
  proceedings has to be exercised very sparingly and with
  circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases
D and the court cannot be justified in embarking upon an
  enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise
  of allegations made in the F.1.R./Complaint, unless the
  allegations are so patently absurd and inherently
  improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach
E such a conclusion. The extraordinary and inherent
  powers of the court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction
  on the court to act according to its whims or caprice.
  However, the court, under its inherent powers, can
  neither intervene at an uncalled for stage nor can it 'soft-
F pedal the course of justice' at a crucial stage of
  investigation/ proceedings. [Para 12] [693-G-H; 694-A]
                    I

      1.2 The provisions of Articles 226, 227 of the
  Constitution of India and Section 482 Cr.P.C. are a device
  to advance justice and not to frustrate it. The power of
G judicial review is discretionary, however, it must be
  exercised to prevent the miscarriage of justice and for
  correcting some grave errors and to ensure that stream
  of administration of justice remains clean and pure.
  However, there are no limits of power of the court, but the
H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v. ARUN GULAB 685
              GAWALI & ORS.
more the power, the more due care and caution is to be         A
exercised in invoking these powers. [Para 12] [694-B-C]

    R.P. Kapµr VS. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866; State
of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. AIR 1992
SC 604; State of Karnataka vs. L.Muniswamy and Ors. AIR
                                                               8
1977 SC 1489 - relied on.

    State of West Bengal and Ors. vs. Swapan Kumar Guha
and Ors. AIR1982 SC 949; M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr.
Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 128;
G. Sagar Suri and Anr. vs. State of UP. and Ors. AIR 2000      C
SC 754; Ajay Mitra vs. State of M.P. and Ors. AIR 20Q3 SC
1069 - referred to.

     1.3 The inherent power is to be exercised ex debito
justitiae, to do real and substantial justice, for             0
administration of which alone courts exist. Wherever any
attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce
injustice, the court has power to preve11t the abuse. It is,
however, not necessary that at this stage there should
be a meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to       E
find out whether the case ends in conviction or acquittal.
[Para 16] [695-H; 696-A]

     State of Orissa and Anr. vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo (2005)
13 sec 540; B. S. Joshi and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and
Anr. AIR 2003 SC1386 - relied on.                              F

    Mrs. Dhanalakshmi vs. R. Prasanna Kumar and Ors. AIR
1990 SC 494; Ganesh Narayan Hegde vs. S. Bangarappa
and Ors. (1995) 4 SCC 41 ; and Mis Zandu Pharmaceutical
Works Ltd. and Ors. vs. Md. Sharafu/ Haque and Ors. AIR G
2005 SC 9 - referred to.

   1.4 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
                                                               H
    686     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 10 S.C.R.

A   by quashing the proceedings, it may quash the
    proceedings, as the end of achieving justice is higher
    than the end of merely following the law. It is not
    necessary for the court to hold a full-fledged inquiry or
    to appreciate the evidence, collected by the investigating
B   agency, if any, to find out whether the case would end in
    conviction or acquittal. [Para 24] [698-H; 699-A-B]

         1.5 While exercising inherent power, the court has to
    act cautiously before1 proceeding to quash a prosecution
    in respect of an offence which hits and affects the society
C   at large. It should be a case where no other view is
    possible n,or any further investigation or inquiry is
    required. There cannot be a general proposition of law,
    so as to fit in as a straitjacket formula for the exercise of
    such power. Each case will have to be judged on its own
D   merit and the facts warranting exercise of such power.
    [Para 25] [700-B-D]

        1.6 In the instant case, the High Court proceeded on
    the perception that as the complainant himself was not
E   supporting the complaint, he would not support the case
    of the prosecution and there would be no chance of
    conviction, thus the trial itself would be a futile exercise.
    Quashing of FIR/Complaint on such a ground cannot be
    held to be justified in law. [Para 25] [699-C-D]
F      1.7 A claim founded on a denial by the complainant
  even before the trial commences coupled with an
  allegation that the police had compelled the lodging of a
  false FIR, is a matter which requires further investigation
  as the charge is levelled against the police. If the
G prosecution is quashed, then neither the trial court nor
  the investigating agency has any opportunity to go into
  this question, which may require consideratio.n. The
  State is the prosecutor and all prosecution is the social

H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v. ARUN GULAB 687
              GAWALI & ORS.
and legal responsibility of the State. An offence                A
committed is a crime against a society and not against a
victim alone. The victim under undue pressure or
influence of the accused or under any threat or
compulsion may resile back but that would not absolve
the State from bringing the accused to book, who has             B
committed an offence and has violated the law of the
land. [Para 25] [699-G-H; 700-A-B]

      1.8 Ordinarily, the Court of Session is empowered to
discharge an accused u/s. 227 Cr.P.C. even before
initiating the trial. The accused can, therefore, move the       C
trial court itself for such a relief and the trial court would
be in a better position to analyse and pass an order as it
is possessed of all the powers and the material to do so.
It is, therefore, not necessary to invoke the jurisdiction u/
s. 482 Cr.P.C. for the quashing of a prosecution in such         D.
a case. The reliance on affidavits by the High Court would
be a weak, hazy and unreliable source for adjudication
on the fate of a trial. The presumption that an accused
would never be convicted on the material available is too
risky a proposition to be accepted readily, particularly in      E~
heinous offences like extortion. [Para 25] [699-0-F]

    1.9 More so, the instant case was not a case of civil
nature where there could be a possibility of compromise
or involving an offence which may be compoundable                F
under Section 320 Cr.P.C. [Para. 25] [700~0-E]

    Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and Anr. vs. Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre and Ors. AIR 1988 SC 709 - held
inapplicable.

     State of Bihar and Anr. vs. Shri P. P. Sharma and Anr.
AIR 1991 SC 1260; A/pie Finance Ltd. vs. P. Sadasivan and
Anr. AIR 2001 SC 1226; M.N.Damani vs. S.K. Sinha and Ors.
AIR 2001 SC 2037 - referred to.
                                                                 H
     688      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A        2. If the facts of the instant case are examined in
    correct perspective, it is evident that all possible steps
    had been taken by the wife of the complainant in a very
    close proximity to the date of lodging the complaint. The
  · c~p1aint was lodged on 8.11.2005 and application was
B moved by the wife of the complainant before the Chief
   /Metropolitan Magistrate for release of the complainant
    from police custody or his production before the court
    on 9.11.2005. She approached the State Human Rights
    Commission on 11.11.2005 and all other steps have also
c been taken with due diligence and promptness.
    Therefore, it cannot be said that such complaints had
    been made by the wife of the compl~iha'nt under any
    threat or that the complainant did not want to support the
    case of the prosecution for some other reason. There has
    been a persistent stand taken by the complainant and his
0
    wife that the complaint was not made voluntarily and her
    husband and other family members had been subjected
    to great deal of harassment and persecution by the police
    for no fault of theirs. In such a fact-situation, the possibility
    that the allegations made by the complainant and his wife
E in their complaints/applications/writ petitions may be true,
    cannot be ruled out. It was a fit case, where in order to
    meet the ends of justice and to prevent the miscarriage
    of criminal justice, the inherent powers of the Court to
    quash the FIR/complaint could have been exercised.
F Thus, the complaint lodged by the complainant against
    respondent No.1 was liable to be quashed. [Paras 26 and
    27) [701-F-H; 702-A-D]
                          Case Law Reference:
.G
           AIR 1982 SC 949         Referred to.           Para 1~
           AIR 1998 SC 128         Referred to.           Para 12
           AIR 2000 SC 754         Referred to.           Para 12

 H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v. ARUN GULAB 689
              GAWALI & ORS.
    AIR 2003 SC 1069         Referred to.         Para 12      A

    AIR 1960 SC 866          Relied on.           Para 13
    AIR 1992 SC 604          Relied on.           Para 14
    AIR 1977 SC 1489         Relied on.           Para 15      B
    AIR 1990 SC 494          Referred to.         Para 16
    (1995) 4 sec 41          'Referred to. ·      Para 16
    AIR 2005 SC 9            Referred to.         Para 16
                                                               c '.
    2005 (13) sec 540        Relied on.           Para 17
    AIR 2003 SC 1386         Relied on.           Para 18
    AIR 1988 SC 709          Held inapplicable. Para 19
    AIR 1991 SC 1260         Referred to.         Para 21      D

    AIR 2001 SC 1226        . Referred to.        Para 22
    AIR 2001 SC 2037         Referred to.         Para 23
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal          .E
No. 590 of 2007.

    From the Judgment & Orde, Jated 27.07.2006 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No.
3169 of 2005 with Criminal Writ Petition No. 874 of 2006 and
                                                               F
Criminal Writ Petition No. 878 of 2006.

     S.B. Sanyal, Arun R. Pednekar, Sanjay Kharde, Asha G.
Nair, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Makrand D. Adkar, Vijay
Kumar, 0.0. Ghadge, S.S. Mahajan, Vishwajit Singh, Braj
Mishra, Aparna Jha, Abhishek Yadav, Vikram for the appearing   G
parties.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

                                                               H
    690      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 10 S.C.R.

A         DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred
  against the Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2006 in Criminal
  Writ Petition No.3169/2005 with Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 874
  and 878 of 2006, passed by the High Court of Judicature at
  Bombay, allowing the said petitions filed by the respondents
B and quashing the Criminal Complaint/FIR.

       2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to the present
  appeal are that Mohd. Qureshi, one of the respondents, lodged
  a complaint dated 8.11.2005 with Deputy Commissioner of
C Police, CID (Unit Ill) against the Arun Guiab Gawali gang. The
  said complaint was forwarded to Agripada Police Station.
  Accordingly, CR No. 241/2005 under Sections 384, 386,
  506(ii), 120, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, "IPC")
  was registered against Arun Guiab Gawali, MLA, respondent
  herein, and members of his gang, namely, Sun ii Gathe,
D Sadanand Panchal, Rajendra Sadvirkar and Sanjay Girkar.
  After taking over of the investigation by DCB, CID, Mumbai, CR
  No. 135/05 was registered:

        3. According to the said complaint, there was a
E commercial transaction in December, 2002, between one Mr.
  Doshi and Mohd. Qureshi in respect of the purchase of Hotel
  Pritam International
                  ---·-- .
                           at .Ambernath in partnership and certain
  payments had also been made, but there was a dispute
  between the parties. An advertisement was issued for sale of
F the hotel, but the said hotel could not be sold for two years and
  the differences between them continued. On 15th March, 2005,
  the complainant received a telephone call from an unknown
  person, who used very vulgar and indecent language and told
  the complainant to come to Dagadi Chaw! for settlement of the
G dispute of Hotel Pritam. Dagadi Chaw! is the residential place
  of respondent, Arun Guiab Gawali, and he also has an office
  in. that Ctiawl. The complainant became scared and went to
  Dagadi Chaw! on 18th March, 2005. On reaching there the
  complainant met one person by the name Sanjay Girkar, who
  abused him. Sanjay Girkar contacted Mr. Doshi on his mobile
H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v. ARUN GULAB 691
     GAWALI & ORS. [DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
and spoke with him in vulgar language and asked him to come              A·
to Dagadi Chawl for settlement of the case of Hotel Pritam. The
complainant and Mr. Doshi visited Dagadi Chawl a number of
times along with other persons. The accomplices of Arun Guiab
Gawali gave threats to them and directed them to act according
to their instructions. Due to fear of threats of the members of          8
the l)aid gang, Mr. Doshi and the complainant agreed to pay
the extortion mon"ey. The complainant was instructed to pay a
sum of Rs. 15 lakhs to Shiv Shambhu Trust, which is managed
by Arun Guiab Gawali. The complainant paid the amount of
Rs.15 lakhs to the said Trust under the threat that if this amount       C
was not paid,then his life would be in danger. The complainant
also learnt that Mr. Doshi had already paid Rs. 25 iakhs-to the
said gang under threat. Subsequently, the accomplices of Arun
Guiab Gawali made telephone calls to the complainant to pay
Rs. 3 lakhs more and the said amount was also paid. They also
forced the complainant to sign certain papers.                           D

     A. Mohd. Qureshi, the complainant/respondent, filed
application dated 14.11.2005 before the Court of Metropolitan
Magistrate (46th Court), Mazgaon, Mumbai stating that he did
not want to proceed with the complaint. The court rejected the           E
said application vide order dated 17 .11.2005. ·

     5 .. Mohd. Qureshi and his wife Ayesha Qureshi,
respondents, filed Writ Petition No. 2906/2005 on 29.11.2005,
before the High Court alleging harassment by the police and
                                                                         F
seeking the direction of removal of surveillance by police, as
police had been posted with them under the garb of protection,
and asking for the initiation of a judicial inquiry against the police
alleging that Mohd. Qureshi was forced by the police itself to
lodge the complaint dated 8.11.2005 against the Arun Guiab
Gawali. gang and also forced to. write an application seeking            G
protection, though they never sought any such protection.

      6. The High Court disposed of the said Writ Petition vide
order dated 21.12.2005, recording the statement of the
petitioners' 9,ounsel that police protection had already been            H
    692      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A   withdrawn and giving liberty to the said petitioners to make their
    grievances before the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. The
    Commissioner of Police was directed that in case, such a
    complaint is filed, it should be decided expeditiously in
    accordance with law.
B       7. Mohd. Qureshi filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 874/2006
  before the High Court of Bombay for quashing the CR No. 241/
  2005. Arun Guiab Gawali also preferred Writ Petition No. 3169/
  05 seeking quashing of FIR 241/2005 at Agripada Police
  Station, and Writ Petition No. 878/2006 for quashing of CR No.
C 135 of 2005. All the said Writ Petitions were clubbed and heard
  together. The appellants herein contested the said Petitions by
  filing Counter Affidavits.

       8. In the meanwhile, Arun Guiab Gawali was granted
o anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court vide order dated
  3.12.2005. The High Court cancelled the anticipatory bail of
  Arun Guiab Gawali vide Order dated 21.02.2006 and
  remanded the case to the Sessions Court to consider it afresh.
  During the pendency of the reconsideration of the said
E application, proceedings under Maharashtra Control of
  Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) against Arun Guiab
  Gawali were initiated vide order dated 14.04.2006.

        The High Court allowed all the said Writ Petitions quashing
    the C.R.No.241/2005, and C.R. No.135/2005. Hence, this
F   appeal.

       9. Sh. Arun R. Pednekar, learned counsel for the
  appellants, has submitted that the High Court has committed
  a grave error in quashing the FIR/complaint. Mohd. Qureshi,
G respondent, had filed a complaint against the Arun Guiab
  Gawali gang on the basis of which a case was registered. If
  for certain reasons or under threat by the Arun Guiab Gawali
  gang, Mohd. Qureshi did not want to pursue the matter further,
  such a course could not be a ground for quashing the
H proceedings. More so, the High Court reached the conclusion
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v. ARUN GULAB 693
     GAWALI & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
that if the proceedings were permitted to continue, there was        A
no possibility of conviction after conclusion of the trial. The
Court, in exercise of its inherent power, is not competent to take
a decision at the preliminary stage and determine as to whether
there is a possibility of conviction. Thus, the impugned
Judgment and order of the High Court is liable to be set aside.      B ·

     10. Per contra, Mr. S.B. Sanyal, learned senior counsel for
Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and Mr. Makarand D. Adkar, learned
counsel for the respondent No.1, have vehemently opposed the
appeal contending that the Court had examined the facts and          C
taken note of various proceedings initiated by the respondents
in the meantime to the effect that the police officials had been
harassing Mohd. Qureshi and his family and it was the police
who forced the complainant to lodge the complaint against the
Arun Guiab Gawali gang and, he was forced to take police
protection labeling him as a complainant against the Arun Guiab      D
Gawali gang. Ayesha Qureshi filed the appropriate application
before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 9.11.2005 and
approached the State Human Rights Commission on
11.11.2005 against the atrocities of the police. The High Court
decided the matter after considering all the aspects. The            E
Judgment and order of the High Court does not warrant any
interference. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be
dismissed.

     11. We have considered the rival submissions made by            F
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

     12. The power of quashing criminal proceedings has to be
exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too
in the rarest of rare cases and the Court cannot be justified in
embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness       G
or otherwise of allegations made in the F.1.R./Complaint, unless
the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable
so that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion.
The extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not
confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to    H
    694       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A its whims or caprice. However, the Court, under its inherent
   powers, can neither intervene at an uncalled for stage nor it can
  'soft-pedal the course of justice' at a crucial stage of
  investigation/ proceedings. The provisions of Articles 226, 227
  of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of
B Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as 'Cr.P.C.') are
  a device to advance justice and not to frustrate it. The power
  of judicial review is discretionary, however, it must be exercised
  to prevent the miscarriage of justice and for correcting some
  grave errors and to ensure that stream of administration of
c justice remains clean and pure. However, there are no limits
  of power of the Court, but the more the power, the more due
  care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers.
  (Vide State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha
  & Ors. AIR 1982 SC 949; Mis. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. Vs.
  Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. AIR 1998 SC 128; G.
0
  Sagar Suri & Anr. Vs. State of UP. & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 754;
  and Ajay Mitra Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. AIR 2003 SC 1069) ..

         13. In R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866,
    this Court laid down the following principles :-
E
          (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;
F         (II) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar
          against the institution or continuance of the said
          proceeding, e.g. want of sanction;

          (Ill) where the allegations in the First Information Report or
G         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
          there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence
          adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v. ARUN GULAB 695
     GAWALI & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
      14. In State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.      A
AIR 1992 SC 604, this Court laid down the similar guidelines
for exercising the inherent power, giving types of cases where
the Court may exercise its inherent power to quash the criminal
proceedings. However, the types of cases mentioned therein
do not constitute an exhaustive list, rather the cases are merely   B·
illustrative.

    15. In State of Karnataka Vs. L.Muniswamy & Ors. AIR
1977 SC 1489, this Court held as under:-

    "In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court C
    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 D
    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 E
    material 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 F
    legislature. The compelling necessity for making these
    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 G
    appreciate the width and contours of that salient
    jurisdiction." (Emphasis added).

       16. 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        H
    696       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A   abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has
    powerto 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
B   & Ors. AIR 1990 SC 494; Ganesh Narayan Hegde Vs. S.
    Bangarappa & Ors. ( 1995) 4 SCC 41; and Mis Zandu
    Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. .& Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque
    & Ors. AIR 2005 SC 9).
         17. In State of Orissa & Anr. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo
c   (2005) 13   sec  540, it has been held that probabilities of the
    prosecution version can not be analysed at this stage. Likewise
    the allegations of mala tides of the informant are of secondary
    importance. The relevant passage reads thus:

D         "It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the
          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
E         erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude
          that the complaint cannot be proceeded with." (Emphasis
          added).

          18. In B.S. Joshi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. AIR
    2003 SC 1386, this Court held that inherent power must be
F   utilised with the sole purpose of preventing the abuse of the
    process of the court or to otherwise serve the ends of justice.
    In exercise of inherent powers, proper scrutiny of facts and
    circumstances of the case concerned are absolutely imperative.

G        19. In Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia & Anr. Vs.
    Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. AIR 1988 SC 709,
    this court held as under :-

          'The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution
          at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be
H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v. ARUN GULAB 697
     GAWALI & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
    applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted A
    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
    whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to
    permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis B ·
    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 likely to be served by allowing a criminal
    prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into c
    consideration the special facts of a case also quash the
    proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."
    (Emphasis added).

     20. This Court, while reconsidering the Judgment in
Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia (supra), consistently observed D
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
     21. 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, 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 l.P.C. which
    the High Court refused to quash under Section 482. This            G
    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 those facts and also due to the relation of the settler,   H
    698      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A         the 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 Court laid down as a proposition of
B         /aw that in every case the court would examine at the
          preliminary stage whether there would be ultimate
          chances of conviction on the basis of a/legation and
          exercise of the power under Section 482 or Article 226 to
          quash the proceedings or the charge-sheet." (Emphasis
c         added).

         22. In A/pie Finance Ltd. Vs. P. Sadasivan & Anr. AIR
    2001 SC 1226, this Court explained the ratio of the Judgment
    in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia (supra), that law laid down
    therein would only apply where it is a question of a civil wrong,
D   which may or may not amount to a criminal offence. Madhavrao
    Jiwaji Rao Scindia (supra) was the case involving a trust where
    proceedings were initiated by some of the trustees against
    other trustees. This Court, after coming to the conclusion, that
    the dispute was predominantly civil in nature and that the parties
E   were willing to compromise, quashed the proceedings.

        23. In M.N.Damani Vs. S.K. Sinha & Ors. AIR 2001 SC
    2037, this Court again explained the Judgment in Madhavrao
    Jiwaji Rao Scindia (supra) in a similar manner.
F         24. 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 sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end
G   in conviction. The ratio of the said Judgment is applicable in
    limited 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.
    matrimonial, property and family disputes etc. etc. The Superior
H   Courts have been given inherent powers to prevent the abuse
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v. ARUN GULAB 699
     GAWALI & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
of the process of Court where the Court finds that the ends of         A
justice may be r:net by quashing the proceedings, it may quash
the proceedings, as the end of achieving justice is higher than
the end of merely following the law. It is not necessary for the
court to hold a full-fledged inquiry or to appreciate the evidence,
collected by the Investigating Agency, if any to find out whether      B
the case would end in conviction or acquittal.

     25. The instant case is required to be examined in the light
of the aforesaid settled legal propositions.

      The High Court proceeded on the perception that as the           C
complainant himself was not supporting the complaint, he would
not support the case of the prosecution and there would be no
chance of conviction, thus the trial itself would be a futile
exercise. Quashing of FIR/Complaint on such a ground cannot
be held to be justified in law. Ordinarily, the Court of Sessions      D
is empowered to discharge an accused under Section 227
Cr.P.C. even before initiating the trial. The accused can,
therefore, move the Trial Court itself for such a relief and the
Trial Court would be in a better position to analyse and pass
an order as it is possessed of all the powers and the material         E
to do so. It is, therefore, not necessary to invoke the jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the quashing of a prosecution
in such a case. The reliance on affidavits by the High Court
would be a weak, hazy and unreliable source for adjudication
on the fate of a trial. The presumption that an accused would          F
never be convicted on the material available is too risky a
proposition to be accepted readily, particularly in heinous
offences like extortion.

     A claim founded on a denial by the complainant even
before the trial commences coupled with an allegation that the         G
police had compelled the lodging of a false FIR, is a matter
which requires further investigation as the charge is levelled
against the police. If the prosecution is quashed, then neither
the Trial Court nor the Investigating Agency has any opportunity
to go into this question, which may require consideration. The         H
    700      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A State is the prosecutor and all prosecution is the social and
  legal responsibility of the State. An offence committed is a
  crime against a society and not against a victim alone. The
  victini under undue pressure or influence of the accused or
  underany threat or compulsion may resile back but that would
B not absolve the State from bringing the accused to book, who
  has committed an offence and has violated the law of the land.

       Thus, while exercising such power the court has to act
  cautiously before proceeding to quash a prosecution in respect
  of an offence which hits and affects the society at large. It should
C be a case where no other view is possible nor any investigation
  or inquiry is further required. There cannot be a general
  proposition of law, so as to fit in as a str3itjacket formula for
  the exercise of such power. Each case will have to be judged
  on its own merit and the facts warranting exercise of such
D power.

      More so, it was not a case of civil nature where there could
  be a possibility of compromise. or involving an offence which
  may be compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., where the
E Court could apply the ratio of the case in Madhavrao Jiwaji
  Rao Scindia (supra).

       Thus, it is a fit case where the impugned Judgment should
  be set aside and the case,be remitted for deciding afresh. As
  the matter is old and we haye gone through the entire material
F on record, we have taken this task upon ourselves and
  examined whether the FIR could have been quashed on other
  grounds. The complainant has submitted before the High Court
  as well as before us on oath that he was in police custody/police
  protection from 7 .11.2005 to 9.11.2005 and he was forced to
G write the complaint against the Arun Guiab Gawali gang on
  8.11.2005. Ayesha Qureshi, wife of the complainant, made an
  application on 9.11.2005 before the Metropolitan Magistrate
  (37th Court) at Esplanade for issuing direction to the police to
  release her husband or produce him before the court.
H Immediately after filing of the said application, Mohd. Qureshi
STATE OF MAHARASHrRA & ORS. v. ARUN GULAB 701
     GAWALI & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
stood released. Again on 11.11.2005, Ayesha Qureshi sent a A
complaint to the State Human Rights Commission stating that
her husband had been confined in police custody, tortured and
was forcibly made to sign some papers. On 12.11.2005, Mohd.
Qureshi made an application before Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate to drop the proceedings in the FIR/ B ·.
Complaint. Again on 14.11.2005, Mohd. Qureshi made an ·
application before Metropolitan Magistrate submitting that he
did not want to proceed with the said complaint. The said
application was rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate vide
order dated 17.11.2005. Mohd. Qureshi and his wife filed the       c
writ petition before the High Court on 29.11.2005 for the
withdrawal of the so- called police protection and for a judicial
inquiry on the issue of forcing the complainant to lodge an FIR/
Complaint against the Arun Guiab Gawali gang.

      26. The matter was heard by the High Court and disposed      D
of, issuing a direction that there shall be no police personnel
around Mohd. Qureshi, his wife and other family members and
further directing the Police Commissioner to redress their
grievances in respect of their allegation that Mohd. Qureshi had
been forced by the police to lodge a complaint against the Arun    E
Guiab Gawali gang. The other writ petitions for quashing of FIR/
complaint were filed by Mohd. Qureshi, his wife Ayesha Qureshi
and Arun Guiab Gawali at a later stage i.e. in April, 2006 and
the said petitions, after contest,. had been allowed vide
Judgment and order dated 27. 7.2006. If the aforesaid facts are    F
examined in correct perspective, it is evident that all possible
steps had been taken by Ayesha Qureshi in a very close
proximity to the date of lodging the complaint. At the cost of
repetition, we mention again that the complaint was lodged on
8.11.2005 and application was moved by Ayesha Qureshi              G
before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for release of Mohd.
Qureshi from police custody or his production before the court
on 9.11.2005. She approached the State Human Rights
Commission on 11.11.2005 and all other steps have also been
taken with due diligence and promptness. Therefore, it cannot      H
    702      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2010] 10 S.C.R.


A be said that such complaints had been made by Ayesha
  Qureshi under any threat or that the complainant did not want
  to support the case of the prosecution for some other reason.
  There has been a persistent stand taken by Ayesha Qureshi
  that the complaint was not made voluntarily and her husband
B and other family members had been subjected to great deal
  of harassment and persecution by the police for no fault of-
  theirs. In such a fact-situation, the possibility that the allegations
  made by Mohd. Qureshi and Ayesha Qureshi in their
  complaints/applications/writ petitions may be true, cannot be
c ruled out. Thus, it was a fit case, where in order to meet the
  ends of justice and to prevent the miscarriage of criminal
  justice, the inherent powers of the Court to quash the FIR/
  complaint could have been exercised.

      27. Thus, the complaint dated 8.11.2005 lodged by Mohd.
D Qureshkagainst the Arun Guiab Gawali gang was liable to be
  quashed, though for different reasons, as recorded
  hereinabbve.

        28. In view of the above, the Criminal Appeal stands
    dismissed.

    K.K.T                                         Appeal dismissed.