SC: No to misuse of section 482 to short circuit prosecution

The Supreme Court has ruled that an accused cannot be allowed to misuse the provisions of Section 482 of CrPC to short-circuit a genuine prosecution and bring it to an abrupt closure without a full-fledged inquiry.

Section 482 gives power to High Court to quash the criminal proceedings when the allegations made in the FIR do not disclose the commission of an offence even if it is presumed that the allegations are entirely true.

The case relates to the seizure of 5,040 kg of black jaggery contained in 106 gunny bags used in producing illicit liquor which was unfit for consumption.

The seizure was made on September 12, 2002 in Karimnagar district of Andhra Pradesh.

Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed the proceedings against the accused persons Gourishetty Mahesh and others which were initiated by the state Excise Department under sections 34(e), 41 and 42 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.

Allowing the appeal of the state against the impugned judgement of the High Court, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and Anil R Dave said, ‘While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an inquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained.

That is the function of the trial judge/court.

It is true that court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, otherwise, it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly.

At the same time Section 482 is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its closure without full-fledged inquiry.’ Justice Sathasivam writing 14-page judgement for the bench set aside the impugned judgement of the High Court and restored the case to be decided on merits making it clear that the Supreme Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.