In Rajiv Thapar & Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 4883 of 2008), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para No. 23 of its judgment has delineated steps to determine the veracity of the prayer for quashing in following words:
“We would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:
(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.
(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in a abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?
If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. [Para 23]
The Court also observed:
“The discretion vested in a High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised suo-moto to prevent the abuse of process of a court, and/or to secure the ends of justice.” [Para 20]
“The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., must make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused is. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so, because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed, by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position, that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has levelled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held.” [Para 21]
To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges leveled against the accused; and the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence.
For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. [Para 22]
The Court quoted the following decisions:
State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, wherein it was held that:
“29. Regarding the argument of accused having to face the trial despite being in a position to produce material of unimpeachable character of sterling quality, the width of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code and Article 226 of Constitution of India is unlimited whereunder in the interests of justice the High Court can make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice within the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal's case.
Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Vijaya Satardekar & Ors., (2008) 14 SCC 1, wherein in the main order it was observed, that the width of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was unlimited.
The High Court could make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court was free to consider even material, that may be produced on behalf of the accused, to arrive at a decision whether the charge as framed could be maintained.
On the facts of the case the Hon’ble Court noted the following points:
(i) The complaint proceeds on the assumption, that complainant’s daughter was administered poison.
(ii) Insofar as the allegation, that the accused had poisoned complainant’s daughter the accused have placed reliance on the post-mortem report, chemical analysis findings recorded in the Central Forensic Science Laboratory’s report, the inquest report, and the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi,
(iii) A high level Medical Board, constituted for conducting the post-mortem examination, in unequivocal terms returned a finding, that “cardiac decompensation due to enlarged atrial septal defect & pulmonary hypertension” was the cause of Dr. Monica Thapar’s death.
(iv) Samples from the stomach, intestine, liver, spleen, kidney and blood of the deceased’s body were taken for forensic examination negatived the aforesaid allegation by concluding, that the samples did not indicate the presence of any common poisoning substance.
(v) Echo-cardiography conducted at the Urmil Heart and Lung Centre, Surat, disclosed the presence of a large hole in Dr. Monica Thapar’s heart. Even according to the Urmil Heart and Lung Centre, Surat, Dr. Monica Thapar had suffered massive heart attack, and had died at the said hospital.
(vi) The evidence, relied upon by the appellant has not been contested or refuted by the complainant
(vii) Material in the nature of the post-mortem report, the Central Forensic Science Laboratory’s report, as also the inquest report, would be sufficient to exculpate the appellants from the allegations and accusations levelled in the complaint.
(viii) Even the complainant allegation that the deceased was strangulated by the accused to death was not substantiated by the examination of Chief Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, and Professor, Cardiothoracic Surgery, G.B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi (members of the Medical Board, which had conducted the post-mortem examination). They affirmed, that the death of deceased had not been caused by strangulation.