UMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & Anr.

Smt. Kiran Bedi & Jinder Singh v. The Committee of UMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 217 Inquiry & Anr., AIR 1989 SC 714; Board of Trustees of the A Port of Bombay v. Difipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkami & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 109; Nilgiris Bar Association v. TK Mahalingam & Anr., AIR 1998 SC 398; Dr. Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chattisgarh & Ors., AIR 2012 SC 2573; Vishwanath Sitaram Agrawal v. Sau Sar/a Vishwanath B Agrawal, AIR 2012 SC 586 and Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2013) 2 sec 398 - relied on.

#2. If any person has forged in a letter under the name of the Samithi and forged the signature of 'M', the matter being of grave nature requires investigation and, one C cannot find fault with the action initiated against the appellant. [Para 12] [234-G]

#3. Once crimin<!I law is put in motion and after investigation the charge sheet is filed, it requires scrutiny o in the court of law. However, before the charges could be framed, the appellant approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the charge sheet. The scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well defined and inherent powers could be exercised by the High E Court to give effect to an order under the Cr.P.C.; to prevent abuse of the process of court; and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This extraordinary power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae. However, in exercise of such powers, it is not permissible for the High Court to appreciate the evidence as it can only evaluate material documents on record to the extent of its prima facie satisfaction about the existence of sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused and the court cannot look into materials, the acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial. Any document filed alongwith G the petition labelled as evidence without being tested and proved, cannot be examined. Law does not prohibit entertaining the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet even before the charges are framed or before the application of discharge is filed or H F '.218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R. A even during its pendency of such application before the c:ourt concerned. The High Court cannot reject the application merely on the ground that the accused can argue legal and factual issues at the time of the framing c1f the charge. However, the inherent power of the court B should not be exercised to stifle the legitimate prosecution but can be exercised to save the accused to undergo the agony of a criminal trial. [Para 12) [234-H; 235-A-E] C Pepsi Food Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 128; Ashok Chaturvedi & Ors. v. Shitulh Chanchani & Anr. AIR 1998 SC 2796; G. Sagar Suri & Anr. v. St:Jte of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2000 SG-154; and Padal Venkata R'ama Reddy @ Ramu v. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 437; Rajiv Thapar v Madan Lal Kapoor, D 2013 (3) SCC 330 and State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma & Anr., relied on. AIR 1991 SC 1260 -

#4. The issue of malafides looses its significance if there is a substance in the allegation made in complaint E moved with malice. In case there is some substance in the allegations and material exists to substantiate the cc1mplicity of the applicant, the case is to be examined in its full conspectus and the proceedings should not be quashed only on the ground that the same had been initiated with mala tides to wreak vengeance or to achieve an ulterior goal. [Paras 15, 18) [237-D; 238-C-D) F . .