S.482 CrPC | Can't Function As Court Of Appeal/ Revision While Exercising Inherent Jurisdiction: Uttarakhand High Court

The applicant-accused's case was that he was accused wrongfully and thus sought quashing of an FIR under S.120B, S.420, S.467, S.468, S.471 of IPC read with S.(1)(a)(c) and S.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and subsequent summoning order of Special Judge (Vigilance).

Justice Alok Kumar Verma has held that the merits of the case cannot be tested when considering the case for summoning and "it is wholly impermissible for this Court to enter into the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegations" in a criminal miscellaneous application invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this High Court under S.482 of CrPC.

Facts of the case in gist are as follows: The Vice-Chancellor of Uttarakhand Ayurvedic University, Dehradun sent a report addressed to the Chief Minister to conduct an enquiry into the allegations against the applicant-accused, who held the post of Registrar in the same university. The allegations on applicant-accused were about financial irregularities committed by the applicant during his tenure as registrar. Following this, an open enquiry was conducted by Vigilance Inspector and an FIR was lodged against the applicant-accused and co-accused persons.

During this investigation, evidence was produced against several illegal actions of applicant-accused, like appointing his brother's wife illegally, receiving imbursement by showing false rail and air travel, illegally buying computers and electronic items for university from firms whose owners were working at the private residence of the applicant. Bank details of these firms showed that not only the account was operated by the applicant, the money was also received by the accused-applicant himself.

Subsequently, the learned Special Judge (Vigilance) Dehradun summoned the applicant-accused and this application has been filed to quash the FIR as well as the summoning order.

The counsel for applicant-accused argued that all the articles purchased were purchased in consonance with Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, 2008 and the Vice-Chancellor of the University himself had awarded all contracts to vendors and was responsible for all works in University according to the provisions of the Uttarakhand Ayurveda University Act, 2009.

He further submitted that the applicant had not violated any rules and that before lodging an FIR against the accused, a legal recommendation was supposed to be made as per S.17A of the Act, 1988 which was not made and thus, the FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance order, all must be quashed.

The Counsel for State however opposed all submissions made by the Counsel for applicant, vociferously.

The High Court at the outset clarified that there are only three cases envisaged by S.482 under the CrPC where such extraordinary powers of High Courts may be exercised, "to give effect to an order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of Justice."

Further stating that jurisdiction must not be capriciously exercised, the Court referred to the Apex Court's judgment in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra which held that exercising inherent jurisdiction of High Court is based on following principles

• Power is not to be resorted to, if there is specific provision in Code for redress of grievances of aggrieved party
• It should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.
• It should not be exercised against the express bar of the law engrafted in any other provision of the Code

The High Court then referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including but not limited to Pepsi Food Limited v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, Lee Kun Hee and Others v. State of UP and Others, Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala and Another, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others and Telangana v. Managipet, all of which had described in detail the cases in which extraordinary powers of High Court under S.482 of CrPC can be exercised.

In the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Private Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. where the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that although courts should not thwart any investigation into cognizable offences but if the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence then court would not permit the investigation to continue. Further remarking that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly only 'in the rarest of rare' cases, the Apex Court had further held that even "while examining an FIR, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/Complaint"

The High Court, thus, concluded that the present case does not warrant exercising of extraordinary jurisdiction of the Code because the allegations can only be tested at the time of the trial and High Court's power under S.482 cannot be exercised to consider merits of the case. The application was thus, dismissed.

Case: Dr. Mirtunjay Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Utt) 6

Coram: Hon'ble Justice Alok Kumar Verma

Counsel for Applicant: Mr. Karan Anand

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. P.S. Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State