In our case the petition for quashing of fir is non maintainable in the court of law because

1.according to Section 482 highcourts can give necessary effects for securing ends of justice
that is sedition and defamation ( Here This case also deals with securing the ends of justice
as the issue happened it can be said inciteful and must be moved to the high court under
sec 482 to secure the ends of the justice)

2. The FIR can not also be quashed because Deciding without evidence would be
prejudging. Quashing a proceedings while it is still at a preliminary stage and without
affording the prosecution a reasonable opportunity to substantiate the allegation would be
incorrect. This is also prejudging.
((1996) 2 SCC 194. Supreme Court had to followed to decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan La/, 1992 SCC (Cri)
426. and it would violate the Latin maxim audi altrem paltrem that is every person has the
right to natural justice and everybody should be heard .

There was nothing to hold that the complaint was prima facie
frivolous

3. The criminal complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the alleged offence. If
the necessary factual foundation is laid in the criminal complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients
have not been stated in detail, the criminal
proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is
bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the alleged offence – as stated by
supreme court in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others (2006) 6 SCC 736

4.FIR can’t be quashed for non compoundable offences .

Offences other than those mentioned in Section 320 Cr.P.C. are non-compoundable, i.e., they cannot be
compounded under normal situations.

5. According to J.R.D. Ta ta, Chairman TI & S. Co. Ltd. v. PayaJ Kumar, 1987 Cri.L.J. 447
(SC).).
The Supreme Court, and for that matter the High Court, cannot
count itself as a court of a Magistrate or a Special Judge to
consider whether there is evidence or not sufficient for framing
of charge. The allegations in the complaint are to be taken at their
face value, without adding or substracting anything. Any omission or gap in the
complaints has to be viewed in the light of the
evidence. And since there hasn’t been any investigation conducted we need requisite time
period to investigate and Prove the chages beyond doubt.

Sec 482
Saving of inherent power of High Court- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent
powers of the High Court 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

- The Power of the High Court, therefore is very wide. How

ever, the High Court must exercise such power sparingly
and cautiously. When the High Court notices that there
has been a failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism
or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is
but the salutory duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse
of the process or miscarriage of justice.

( Here This case also deals with securing the ends of justice as the issue happened it can be
said inciteful and must be moved to the high court under sec 482 to secure the ends of the
justice)

If an effective alternative remedy is available, the high court will not exercise its powers under this section, specially when the applicant
may not have availed of that remedy.

Test to determine whether there has been an abuse of any court are:-
1. See whether a bare statement of facts of case would be sufficient to convince HC if it is a fit case for interference at intermediate stage.
2. Whether in the admitted circumstances it would be a mock trial if case is allowed to proceed.
Reasons HC can interfere:
1. Long lapse of time
2. Failure or impossibility to supply to accused, copies of police statements and other relevant documents- grounds for other relevant
documents- grounds for HC to quash proceedings against accused.

“To secure ends of justice”

Eg. When a clear statutory provision of law is violated- HC can interfere. It is of vital importance in the administration of justice, and
ensure proper freedom and independence of Judges must be maintained and allowed to perform their functions freely and fearlessly
without undue influence on anyone, even SC. At the same time Judges and Magistrate should act with a certain amount of justice and fair
play.
The SC in Madhu Limaye v. Maharashtra AIR 1978 SC 47 and also in Amarnath v. Haryana(1977) and Jadhav v. Shankarrao Pawar(1983) has
held the following principles would govern the exrcise of inherent jurisdiction of the HC:
1. Power is not to be resorted to if there is specific provision in code for redress of grievances of aggrieved party
2. It should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice
3. It should not be exercised against the express bar of the law engrafted in any other provision of the code.

State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335),
Indian Oil Corp. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Others (2006 (6) SCC 736).

The Supreme Court summarized the legal position by laying the following guidelines to be followed by high courts in exercise of their
inherent powers to quash a criminal
complaint:
(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 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.

In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others (2006) 6 SCC 736 ) a petition under section 482 was
filed to quash two criminal
complaints. The High Court by common judgments allowed the petition and quashed the two complaints.
The order was challenged in appeal
to Supreme Court of India.
While deciding the appeal, the Supreme Court of India laid down following principles:
1. The high courts should not exercise their inherent powers to repress a legitimate prosecution. The power
to quash criminal complaints should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
2. The criminal complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the alleged offence.
If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the criminal complaint, merely on the ground that a few
ingredients have not been stated in detail, the criminal
proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is
bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the alleged offence.
3. It was held that a given set of facts may make out (a) purely a civil wrong, or (b) purely a criminal offence
or (c) a civil wrong as also a
criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action
for seeking remedy in civil law,
may also involve a criminal offence.
As the nature and scope of civil proceedings are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the
complaint relates to a commercial
transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a
ground to quash the criminal
proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.
In interest of maintaining independence of judiciary, Judges and Magistrate should be at full liberty to
discuss the conduct of persons before
them. However, While exercising inherent powers, the Court should observe and not violate the following
three principles while expressing
opinions on conduct of parties and witnesses:
1.) No person should be condemned without being heard
2.) The criticism of judges and magistrate should not travel beyond the record
3.) The criticism should be made without sobriety and due sense of responsibility.- Saulal Yadav case [1963
Raj 886]

In State of Punjab v. Devinder Kumar, (AIR 1983 se 545) the Supreme Court took
exception to the attitude of the High Court in quashing criminal
proceedings in different Magistrate courts.
"Before concluding we should observe that the High Court committed a serious error in these cases
in quashing the criminal proceedings in different Magistrate's Courts at a premature stage in
exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. These are
not cases where it can be said that there is no legal evidence at all in support of the prosecution. The
prosecution has still to lead its evidence. It is neither expedient nor possible to arrive at a conclusion
at this stage on the guilt or innocence of the accused on the material before the court. While there is
no doubt that the onus of proving the case is on the prosecution, it is equally clear that the
prosecution should have sufficient opportunity to adduce all available evidence"

State of Punjab v. Pritam Chand & Ors. [2009 (2) 457]

Powers possessed by the HC under 482 CrPC are very wide requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its
decision
in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. Inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. In the
instant
case Complainant was married to Appellant 1. Appellant left for U.S.A in 1999. A case under Sec 498 I.P.C and S 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
was
filed. Complaint was treated as FIR and investigation was undertaken. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. A divorce
petition was filed by Appellant in 2001, which was granted ex parte. According to appellants, complainant remarried subsequently.
Appellant
filed petition under sec 482 before the HC for quashing of complaint. HC dismissed the petition, and this was subsequently challenged in
SC. It was held that HC was not justified in dismissing the petition filed by the appellants.

State of Kerala v. Jabbar [2009 (6) 659]

The respondents lodged FIR, against appellant alleging commission of offences under sec 406 and 420, I.P.C and same was registered.
Thereafter investigation commenced. Even while investigation was in progress respondent moved the HC under Sec 482 CrPC, seeking
directions to the police to seize an amount of Rs 2,28,00,000/- from appellants claiming that he was entitled for Rs 1,28,00,000/- for
facilitating
registration of land under the MOU, which amount is alleged to have been withheld by appellants along with a sum of 1 crore, stated to
have
been paid by him to the appellant. In the said petition there was no allegation of any collusion and deliberate delay on part of
investigation agency. HC within a period of one month from the date of filing of petition, finally disposed the same observing that it is
obligatory on part of respondent police to conduct investigation in accordance with law, including recording of statements from witness,
arrest, seizure of property, filing of charge sheet etc. HC further directed that if account is available with accused person or any amount is
in their possession, it is obligatory on part of respondent police to take all necessary steps to safeguard the interest of the respondent. HC
accordingly directed the police to expedite and complete investigation within 6 months. The issues were

i) Whether it is open to HC in exercise of its jurisdiction under Sec 482, to interfere with statutory power of investigation by police into
cognizable offence.
ii) Whether such direction could have been issued by the HC in exercise of its jurisdiction under Sec 482.
Court held both in the negative. Inherent power of the court is saved to interfere with the proceedings pending before a Criminal Court if
such
interference is required to secure the ends of justice or where the continuance of proceedings before a court amounts to abuse of the
process
of Court. Such a power is always available to HC in relation to matter pending before a criminal court.
CONCLUSION :
Section 482 CrPC has a very wide scope and its really important for the courts to use it properly and wisely. Many a times it has been
observed
that when there is an issue of money for eg. Any money matter then the petitioner instead of filing a civil suit files an FIR against the other
person just to harass him. In such cases it becomes very important for the high courts to quash such complaints as it leads to the abuse

Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India & another (1998) 4 SCC 409

The rules of evidence is one major force which helps High Court to keep its inherent jurisdiction within permissible limits.
The Supreme Court has laid down these principles through decisions and High Courts tackle situation in the light of such
decisions. But the prominence of inherent powers even render the above control mechanisms ineffective when demands of
justice call for positive interference.

In Radhey Shyam Khenka v. State of

Bihar,( 1993 SCC (Cri) 591)
the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court.
It was held that the High Court cannot usurp jurisdiction of the
trial court and conduct a powerful trial. The charge-sheet was filed
alleging offences under section 409 IPC. The High Court dismissed
the petition. The Supreme Court held that it is not the
duty of the High Court to find out whether the accused are likely
to be convicted on the basis of the materials collected during the
investigation. While saving the inherent powers of the High Court it is also
made clear that the High Court shall not engage in a fishing expedition
to find the truth, probability or possibility of the allegations.
It is here that the precarious position of the High Court is revealed.
Inherent powers are most potent. But, its application requires
all the sense and sensibility of a scientist and the resourcefulness
of an artist. The power is exercised at the threshold of a
proceedings. The court cannot make a 'hit or miss' approach.
The court works under a serious handicap.
J.R.D. Ta ta, Chairman TI & S. Co. Ltd. v. PayaJ Kumar, 1987 Cri.L.J. 447 (SC)

The Supreme Court, and for that matter the High Court, cannot
count itself as a court of a Magistrate or a Special Judge to
consider whether there is evidence or not sufficient for framing
of charge. Viewed from this angle the jurisdiction of the High
Court while exercising the inherent powers under section 482
Cr.P.C. to quash an F.I.R. or a complaint is very limited. It has no
jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegation
The allegations in the complaint are to be taken at their face value, without adding or substracting
anything. Any omission or gap in the complaints has to be viewed in the light of the evidence

In Dhanalakshmy v. R. Prasannakumar,( Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasana Kumar and others, 1990 (Supp) SCC 686) the Supreme Court
considered the erroneous attitude of the High Court in exercising the inherent powers. A wife was before the Magistrate
court against her husband. In the complaint the offences under sections 494,496, 498A, 112, 114, 120, 1208, and 34I.P.C.
were alleged. The husband had secretly married another lady while the divorce petition was pending. That lady as well as
those connived to solemnise the marriage were all in the party array. The husband, moved the High Court under section 482
Cr.P.C. The proceedings for a decree of divorce was still pending. On application the High Court proceeded to analyse the
case of the complainant in the light of all the probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable.
On such premises the High Court arrived at the conclusion that the proceedings were to be quashed against all the
respondents. The Supreme Court was peeved by it. There were specific allegations in the complaint. The complainant had to
substantiate the allegations by leading in evidence. There was nothing to hold that the complaint was prima facie
frivolous. On the otherhand, the complaint did disclose an offence. Interference by the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C.
was not justified.

Deciding without evidence would be prejudging. Quashing a

proceedings while it is still at a preliminary stage and without affording
the prosecution a reasonable opportunity to substantiate
the allegation would be incorrect. This is also prejudging. ((1996) 2 SCC 194. Supreme Court had
to followed to decision in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan La/, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426.

Invoking inherent powers at the stage of investigation amounts

To premature interference. Investigation is the function of the
agencies of the state like Police. A person shall not be allowed
to avail the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court when the matter
is still at a premature stage and the investigation is incomplete.

After
consulting the Supreme Court decision it would be advantageous
to acquaint with a few decisions of various High Courts. In Jehan
Singh v. Delhi Administration ,39 application filed before the Delhi
High Court for quashing FIR., alleging offences under section
420 and 1208 of IPC was dismissed. The Supreme Court upholding
the decision of the High Court held that the High Court
cannot adjudicate the reliability of the FIR by entering into an
appraisal of evidence
(The Supreme Court had followed the reasoning in State of West Bengal v.
S. N. Basak, (1963) 2 SCC 54.)

In Maninder Kaur v. Rajinder Singh and others,( 1992 SCC (Cri) 522) it was held
that to quash a proceedings at the initial stage so as to strangulate
it at its inception was not justified. The Supreme Court set
aside the decision of the High Court and restored the complaint
to file. Complaint alleged offences under sections 363,366,376,
and 368 read with 34 I PC

In State of Orissa v. Bansidhar Singh,( (1996) 2 SCC 194. Supreme Court had to followed to decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426.) the Supreme Court
set aside the order of the High Court, which quashed the proceedings.
The offence alleged was under section 302 IPC. The
Supreme Court held that quashing criminal proceedings at the
initial stage is not justified. The High Court had rejected the dying
- declaration before its veracity could be tested at trial. At the
investigation stage the High Court cannot take into consideration
statement of persons whose evidence is yet to be recorded at
trial. If at all inherent powers are restricted at the stage of investigation
it should be a lost case. Quashing criminal complaint at
initial stage is to be an exception in applying inherent powers.

In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shiva/ingappa

Konjalgi and others,( 1976 SCC (Cri) 507.)
the Supreme Court set aside the High
Court's decision. The High Court had quashed proceedings alleging
offence under sections 302, 114, 148, and 147 IPC.

In State
of Bihar v. Raj Narain Singh,33 the Supreme Court had deprecated
this practice of the High Court inspite of cautioning on previous occasions

Society's interest is respected by

convicting the real wrong doer. Individual's interest is protected
by acquitting the innocent accused.