Section 482 Unlawful Rejection of 156 in Marathi

Section 482   Unlawful Rejection of 156(3) Application

Instructions for drafting

Parties to the Application:

The Applicants in the 156(3) Application are also the Applicants herein; and the Respondents would be the concerned State, and also the proposed accused.

Jurisdiction of Courts:

The High Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain these Applications.

1.      Section 482 of CrPC, 1973, recognizes the inherent powers of the High Courts 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 Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

2.      Some of the landmark rulings of Apex Court which illustrate the scope and powers of High Courts to grant relief under this jurisdiction.

Para 18: In State of Haryana & Ors. (appellant) v. Bhajan Lai & Ors. (respondents) [1990], this Court after referring to various decisions of this Court, enumerated various categories of cases by way of illustration wherein the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised by the High Court. They are:

(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 their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence; justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 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.

(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.

(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 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.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide 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."

3.      In Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka [2008], the Supreme Court, among other things, said, when it is brought to the notice of the Court that grave miscarriage of justice would be committed if the trial is allowed to proceed where the accused would be harassed unnecessarily if the trial is allowed to linger when prima facie it appears to Court that the trial would likely to be ended in acquittal. In other words, the inherent power of the Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked by the High Court either to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

4.      In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [1960] this Court summarized some of the categories of cases where inherent power should be exercised to quash a criminal proceeding against the accused, stating:

(i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. Want of sanction;

(ii) Where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;

(iii) Where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.

5.      The inherent powers of the HC is a wide and wholesome power. If the court has to examine and determine whether the continuation of criminal proceedings would be just or would be improper, there is no reason why there should be any limitation on the powers of the court to look into all the materials available on record. There is nothing in law to place any such limitation on the powers of the HC. Surendra Kumar Yadav versus State of Bihar – [1989 Patna HC].

In the case of State of Bihar vs. Muradali Khan and others, the Apex Court held as under [1989] …..When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the .accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceeding. [See Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, RupanDeol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan, State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma, Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, SatvinderKaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa.]" (emphasis supplied).

Material facts to be pleaded:

1.      The allegations made in 156(3) Application, prima facie makes out a cognizable offence against Respondent No.2, justifying an investigation by police;

2.      The allegations  made in 156(3) Application and other evidences and materials, accompanying the said Application clearly discloses a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police;

3.      That the impugned Order is contrary to law and contrary to material and  evidences which are on record;

4.      That the Ld. Magistrate committed an error in appreciating the material evidences on record;

5.      That the Ld. Magistrate failed to appreciate the credible material evidence on record.

Limitation period to initiate Criminal Complaint u/s200:

There is no limitation period.

Court fee:

No Court fee.

Verification Clause:

1.      Whereas Parties to the litigation makes series of submissions and allegations against each other, it is a basic requirement of law that Parties must specify in the Verification clause, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of their pleadings, as what facts are which are true to their own knowledge; and what facts are based on the information, belief and legal advice.

2.      Further, Section 297(2) of CrPC, 1973, among other things, stipulates that whoever party is obliged to file an Affidavit in any of the proceedings before the Court, the said Party is obliged to specify in his said Affidavit, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of his affidavit, such facts as the deponent is able to prove from his own knowledge and such other facts he has reasonable ground to believe to be true; and in the latter case, the deponent is obliged to state the grounds of such belief. In the absence of such compliance, a proceedings cannot be said to be duly instituted, and is vulnerable to challenge to be dismissed. Affidavit is required to be filed in Complaints filed u/s 200 of CrPC, 1973, and in other proceedings initiated before the Magistrates Court, Sessions Court or before the High Court.

3.      The person verifying his pleadings is obliged to sign. The Person verifying is also required to state the date and the place at which it was signed.

4.      This requirement of law is based on the principle that whoever comes before the Court, must come with the clean hands and also must come with certain facts and his case should not be based on general, vague or speculative facts.

5.      Therefore, the law requires that whatever is stated by the Party in his proceedings, he must clarify that which statement is made from his own knowledge and which statement is made, based on other information, or based on legal advice.

6.      This is significant from another perspective, where in cases, if the submissions made by the Party were turned out to be false, then, the said Party may be held guilty of perjury / contempt of the Court for knowingly making false statement and misleading the Court, in cases, where he had verified the concerned false Paras emanating from his own knowledge.

7.      The profound object of this verification clause therefore is to prevent or cease frivolous submissions / Applications.

8.      The consequences of not verifying correctly may entail penal consequences. The Apex Court, comprising three Judges Bench, in the case of S.R. Ramaraj Versus Special Court, Bombay, 2003, have inter alia, observed that, “A person is under a legal obligation to verify the allegations of fact made in the pleadings and if he verifies falsely, he comes under the clutches of law”.