SOM MITTAL v. GOVT. OF KARNATAKA

Judgment

, Power u/s. 482 is to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases - Such power is not intended to scuttle justice at the threshold - Per Katju, J., While power under s.482 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly, it cannot be said that it should be exercised in the "rarest of the rare cases" - Expression "rarest of the rare cases" was used in connection with s.302 /PC to hold that death penalty should only be imposed in rarest of rare cases and cannot be extended to a petition under s. 482 CrPC - Kamataka Shops F and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 - ss. 2(1 )(h), 25,30(1) and 30(3). D E Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 438 - State of Uttar Pradesh - Deletion of provision for anticipatory bail under s.438 CrPC by s.9 of the U.P Act 16 of 1976 - Difficulties arising therefrom- Per Katju, J., Strong recommendation made to U.P Government to immediately issue an Ordinance to restore the provision for anticipatory bail by repealing Section 9 of UP Act 16of1976, and empowering the Allahabad High 323 G H -)'.... ... ...._ ~ -( -r .....

324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. A Court as well as the Sessions Courts in U. P to grant anticipatory bail. 8 A woman employee of the company, of which Appellant was the Managing Director, was raped and killed during her travel from house to workplace, by driver of the vehicle, in which she was travelling. On the allegation, that adequate security was not provided to the said woman employee during her travel from home to workplace, a complaint was filed against the Appellant alleging violation of ss.25 and 30(3) of the Karnataka C Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence alleged. A petition under s.482, CrPC for quashing of the complaint and the cognizance was filed before the High Court.

High Court dismissed the petition, but. altered the offence in D re~pect of which cognizance was taken· as one under s. 25 r/w ~.30(1) of t!'le Act. The contention of the Appellant is that he is Managing Director of the company concerned and, therefore, entitled for exemption under s.3(1 )(h) of the Act and consequently E not liable for prosecution under s.25 r.w. s.30(1) of the Act. F

Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD (Per Serna J.): 1.1. In a catena of decisions this Court has deprecated the interference by the High Court i.n exercise of its inherent powers under s.482 of the Code in a routine mariner. It has been consistently held that the power under s.482. must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in rarest of rare cases. Exercise of inherent power under s.482 of the Code of Criminal G Procedure is not the rule but it is an exception. The exception is applied only 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 H allowed to linger when prima facie it appears to Court that SOM MITTAL v. GOVT. OF KARNATAKA 325 the trial would likely to be ended in acquittal. In other A words, the inherent power of the Court under 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. The High Court will not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to B the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.l.R. or the complaint and that the extra-ordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whims and caprice. The power under s.482 is not intended c to scuttle justice at the threshold. [Paras 10, 11, 19] (330-G; 331-A, 8, C, D, E; 335-A]

1.2. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the High Court warranting interference in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution. The trial Court shall D decide the matter expeditiously uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court or the High Court. The Trial Court shall decide the maintainability of the complaint at ~he time of consideration of the charge. [Paras 21, 22] (335-c,·o, E] E East India Commercial Co. Ltd., Calcutta & Anr. v. The Collector of Customs, Calcutta (1963) 3 SCR 338; T. Prem Sagar v. The Standard Vacuum Oil Company Madras & Ors. (1964) 5 SCR 1030; Boothalinga Agencies v. V. T. C. Poriaswami Nadar (1969) 1 SCR 65; and S. M. S. F Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla & Anr. (2005) 8 SCC 89- distinguished.