R. 400 STATE OF PUNJAB & Ors. v. INDER MOHAN CHOPRA Criminal Appeal No. 2 & Ors.

legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest Court D of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the .issues · involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and E cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fastrule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction' of quashing. the proceeding at any stage.[Para 1 OJ [ 400-D, E, F, G] F

2.2 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 WOUid. be sustainable and Ol'f such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proce~dings are to be quashed. It G would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In procee~ing instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for -~- only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any H .. _,; 1 402 , SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. 13 C A offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in ex~n;~ise ef the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is nQt, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint/F.l.R. has to be read as a whole. If it appears that Qn consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant or disclosed in the F.LR. that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint/F.l.R, is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police. D station and an offence is registered, then the mala tides 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 tides against the iriformant are of no c:onsequence and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the proceeding. [Para 10] [ 409-H; 410-A, 8, C, D, E, F] E R.P Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; The Janata F Oaf etc. v. H.S. Chowdhary and others, etc. AIR 1993 SC 892; Or. Raghubir Saran v. State of 8ihar and another, AIR 1964 SC 1; Mrf!?,, Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar and others AIR 1990 §C 494; State of Bihar and another v. PP Sharma, /.A.S. ang another 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 222; Rupan Deal Bajaj (Mrs.) and another v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another 1995 (6) SCC 194; State of Kera/a and others v. 0. C. Kuttan and others 1999 (2) SCC 651; State of UP v. 0. P Sharma 1996 (7) SCC 705; Ra$hmi Kumar (Smt.) v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada 1997 (2) SCC 397; Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of H Delhi) and another 1999 (8) sec 728; Rajesh Bajaj v. State G - _>...., ) 1- STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. V. INDER MOHAN CHOPRA & ORS. 403