A KATHIRESAN Vs. STATE REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The scope of inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "The Code") to quash the F.I.R., is not a new question for consideration by this Court, as this Court as well as the Apex Court had number of occasions to consider the said question. In the present petition, the petitioner who has been arrayed as the second accused in Crime No.1 of 2000 on the file of the respondent police raises the same question and seeks to quash the F.I.R. arrayed him as an accused.

(2.) Before considering the contentions of the petitioner in support of the petition, it would be proper for this Court to consider first the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of "The Code" to quash the F.I.R. A F.I.R. registered under Section 154 of "The Code" is only an initiation to move the machinery of investigation and to investigate into cognizable offence. The power of investigation into such cognizable offence is also contemplated under Section 156 of "The Code" and the procedure for investigation is contemplated under Section 157. Time and again this Court as well as the Apex Court have held that the Court should not interfere in the process of investigation, as the power shall vest only with the Investigating Officer as to how the investigation is to be conducted. Such a power of investigation cannot be interfered by quashing the F.I.R., except in rarest of rare cases and exercise of such power is only an exception. The question of such inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of "The Code" to quash the F.I.R. came up for consideration before the Apex Court on number of occasions. In the recent judgment of the Apex Court in "STATE OF KARNATAKA v. M.DEVENDRAPPA AND ANOTHER (2002 SCC (Crl.) 539)", the Apex Court has held that the exercise of power under Section 482 of "The Code" is an exception and not a rule and the section does not confer any new powers on the High Court as it only saves the inherent power the High Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. The said section envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction could be exercised viz., (1) to give effect to an order under the Code, (2) to prevent abuse of the process of Court and (3) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Therefore, Courts have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of certain duties imposed upon them by law and such powers are necessary to do the right and to undo the wrong in the course of administration of justice. The Apex Court has also held that while exercising the powers under the section, the Court does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. Such powers could be exercised when no offence is disclosed by the complaint and it is also permissible for the Court to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.

(3.) A similar question came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the judgment in "S.M.DATTA v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER (2001 (7) SCC 659)" where in the Apex Court has held that normal rule is not to interfere in the criminal proceedings, except when the complaint or F.I.R. broadly read, does not disclose any offence that can be termed as abuse of process of law. The Apex Court also has held that in the event of commission of a cognizable offence and an offence standing disclosed in the first information report, interest of justice requires further investigation by the investigating agency. Investigation of an offence is within the exclusive domain of the police and not the law courts. In the event of disclosure of an offence, it is the duty incumbent to investigate into the offence and bring the offender to book in order to serve the cause of justice. The Apex Court has also emphasized a clear and well-defined area of operation and demarcated function in the field of investigation of crimes and its subsequent adjudication.