PAVANA SUTHA PLATE EMBOSSERSPRIVET LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In State Of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, Roopan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri, State of U. P. v. OP, Sharma, Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, Satvinder Kaurv. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan, A. V. Mohan Rao v. M. Kishan Rao, State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the High Court should not readily exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of I ndia or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 forquashing the proceedings emanating from a First Information Report orcomplaint and that such power should be exercised sparingly and with great care and circumspection. In Bhajan Lai's case (1 supra), the Supreme Court considered the ambit and scope of the power vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 Cr.P.C. and ruled that the High Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the merits and demerits of the allegations and quash the proceedings without allowing the investigating agency to complete its task. While administering caution against readymade interference by the High Court with the investigation or proceedings of the criminal cases, the Supreme Court carved out certain exceptions, which are enumerated below:

(2.) In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo (13 supra) the Supreme Court reviewed various judicial precedents and laid down the following propositions:

(3.) In A. V. Mohan Rao v. M. Kishan Rao (11 supra) the Supreme Court considered the correctness of order passed by this Court refusing to quash the summons issued against the appellants by the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad. The facts of that case shows that respondent No. 1 filed a complaint in the Court of Special Judge, Economic Offences at Hyderabad with the allegation that accused persons by making false, deceptive and misleading statements and by suppressing facts induced various persons to pay them money for purchase of shares of the Power Company; raised millions of dollars from Non-Resident Indians (NRIs); siphoned of the money into bogus companies exclusively owned by them and purchased shares of the Power Company in India in the names of bogus offshore companies owned and controlled by them. According to the complainant, all this came to his notice when some of the prospective NRI investors made correspondence with the Power Company demanding share certificates for which they had paid substantial amounts to the accused. The complainant alleged that the accused had committed fraud on the Power Company in whose name they collected money and invested the same in their own companies. The Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad issued summons to the accused persons requiring them to appear before the Court. On receipt of the summons, the appellants filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court refused to quash the proceedings. While approving the orderof the High Court, the Supreme Court referred to the earlier judgments in State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1 supra), Mahavir Prasad Gupta v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and held: