Raza Zaheer vs State and Another

I.M. Quddusi, J.—This petition u/s 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed challenging the proceeding pending before the Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. cases, U. P., Lucknow with the prayer that the order taking cognizance and summoning the applicant as accused in Criminal Case No. 99 of 1998, State v. L. B. Singh and others Case No. 99 of 1998, be quashed.

It is alleged that the applicant belongs to a very respectable family. He is a practising Advocate having about 18 years standing at the Bar with a completely unblemished and blotlessly and clean professional career. A complaint under the provisions of Section 195, Cr. P.C. was filed in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. Cases, U. P. Lucknow by Opposite Party No. 1 arraying the applicant Raza Zaheer as one of the accused. It was filed for prosecution of the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 466, 468 and 193, I.P.C.

The complaint before the Magistrate was lodged through J.C.S. Rawat, Addl. Registrar, alleging therein that one L. B. Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, who joined services as Constable in the P.A.C. in the year 1971 was working as S.I. since 1978. A case was registered against him on the basis of complaint lodged by one Mitthu Lal Yadav, son of B. L. Yadav, resident of village Mirzapur under Sections 161 and 420, I.P.C. as Crime No. 1104 of 1980, P.S. Cantonment, Kanpur and after investigation, a final report was submitted to the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Kanpur. Subsequently, a notice was issued to the complainant after recording evidence. Thereafter, the aforesaid L. B. Singh was directed to be tried for the offences punishable under Sections 161 and 420, I.P.C. read with Section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. On that observations, a charge-sheet was prepared and was forwarded to the D.I.G., (P.A.C.), Lucknow, who in turn granted sanction for the prosecution. He was also placed under suspension. He wanted to file writ petition in this Court. He approached Sri Amit Bose, Advocate who prepared a writ petition and requisite affidavits, etc. and got the same passed from the Stamp Reporter who returned the same to the party after reporting the same. Copy of the writ petition was also served upon the Chief Standing Counsel. The writ petition was presented on 26.7.1991 before the Court but the same was presented by the applicant Raza Zaheer as due to certain difference of opinion from Amit Bose, L. B. Singh withdrew his brief and file from Sri Amit Bose who handed over the same along with pre-prepared and duly passed writ petition to him. The Petitioner of that writ petition, namely, L. B. Singh signed Vakalatnama in favour of S/Shri Raza Zaheer (applicant), Anand Mohan and S. B. Verma, Advocates.

In paragraph 9 of the complaint, special allegation with regard to the applicant Raza Zaheer has been levelled which are reproduced as under:

That Sri Raza Zaheer got the following changes made in the original writ petition unauthorisedly.

(i) Index page signed by previous Advocate Amit Bose was removed and was replaced by fresh page signed by Raza Zaheer, Sri Anand Mohan and Sri S. B. Verma, Advocates.

(ii) The last page of the petition signed by Amit Bose was also removed and was replaced accordingly.

(iii) Application for stay was also got changed.

Further allegations have also been levelled which are as under:

Signature of Amit Bose was erased from pages 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the writ petition and at the erased place, applicant Raza Zaheer, Advocate signed.

An unauthorised change was made in the endorsement made by stamp reporting section. Stamp reporting section has passed this petition for hearing by single Judge but the same was hanged for hearing before Division Bench. Writ petition was presented before Division Bench on 26.7.1991 which was against the endorsement of the stamp reporting section made initially.

An affidavit of Sri L. B. Singh dated 29.5.1991 which was identified by Sri Amit Bose, Advocate was removed and destroyed. In its place, back-dated affidavit dated 29.5.1991 was enclosed with the petition which was supposed to have been identified by M. R. Verma, Munshi of Advocate Raza Zaheer. Even though the name of M. R. Verma figured on the affidavit but his signature was not available thereon nevertheless. This affidavit was sworn before Oath Commissioner, N.D. Ahujani.

On 26.7.1991 when the writ petition was presented before Hon''ble K. Naraya and Hon''ble J. K. Mathur, JJ. (as then were), following order was passed:

Learned standing counsel desired and is allowed three weeks time to file counter-affidavit. A rejoinder-affidavit if any, be filed within a week .... Next list there after for admission. On stay application following orders were passed. Further proceedings in respect of the charge-sheet before the Special Judge shall remain stayed till the next day of listing after the filing of counter-affidavit by the State.

The orders were transcribed by Sri S. B. Singh, PA. 27.7.1991 and 28.7.1991 were Saturday and Sunday respectively and on 29.7.1991, i.e., on Monday, the writ petition was sent to Siaha Section for further processing as per procedure. While, the file was being prepared in Siaha Section, Sri Inamul Haqe, Clerk of Sri Raza Zaheer made enquiries regarding receipt of file from the Court. When he was shown the file, he went stating that he will come with application for the certified copy of the said order. The accused-applicant of the writ petition L. B. Singh sat on a vacant seat in Siaha Section pretending that he had some work with Daftary and kept sitting for sometime. Then the file of Writ Petition No. 2504 of 1991 and 2532 of 1991 both were stolen/removed from Siaha Section in the absence of R. C. Shukla, R. G. A. A search was made immediately, then he was informed by accused L. B. Singh not to worry about the file and the same will be available to him (R. C. Shukla, R.G.A.). But when the said file was not traced, then he submitted a report to the Addl. Registrar through his superior Sri Rajendra Prasad Tiwari. On 30.7.1991 both these files were found kept in Court No. 5 and on scrutiny, the orders of the High Court in connection with Writ Petition No. 2504 of 1991, Lal Bahadur Singh v. State of U. P. and others Petition No. 2504 of 1991, were found forged. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the Additional Registrar, who ordered the Joint Registrar, Mr. Rafiquddin to conduct an enquiry. During the enquiry, statement of witnesses were recorded and enquiry report was submitted but unfortunately, the original enquiry report was stolen and shorthand note book, etc. were lost and they are not available. A fresh enquiry was thereafter again conducted by Sri Rafiquddin, Joint Registrar for fixing up the responsibility for loss of documents but nevertheless, the responsibility could not be fixed. The orders were forged/manipulated in the following manner:

(A) Original order on the back of the first page of the writ petition.

Learned standing counsel desired and is allowed three weeks time to file counter-affidavit, a rejoinder-affidavit if any, may be filed within a week .... Next list thereafter for admission.

(a) Additions made in the above order:

''Admit'' at the beginning.

(b) Removed the following portion by erasing:

''Next list thereafter for admission.''

(c) Following words have been overwritten:

(i) Names of both the Hon''ble Judges.

(ii) Words ''Learned, Standing, Counsel, desires, time, file, counter, if, be filed".

Specimen writings of various concerned persons were taken and forwarded to G.E.Q.D. but it has not been possible for G.E.Q.D. to identify the author. L. B. Singh, accused who was to be benefited from such interpolated/forged order, had refused to give his specimen writings in English on the plea that he has forgotten whatever English he had learnt, even though investigation shows that he passed matriculation examination with English as one of the subjects. Thus, the investigation of the case was entrusted to C.B.I., Lucknow vide complaint dated 1.6.1992 filed by the then Incharge Additional Registrar, High Court, Lucknow Bench on the basis of which C.B.I., Lucknow registered a case at RC 12 (s)/92/C.B.I./LKO on 25.6.1992, Learned Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. Cases, U. P., Lucknow took cognizance vide his order dated 29.6.1998 and issued non-bailable warrant against accused persons named in the complaint case including the applicant Raza Zaheer. It is at this stage, present petition u/s 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed in which vide order dated 9.7.1998, this Court directed that meanwhile pending disposal of this application, execution of the warrants of arrest issued against the applicant on 29.6.1998 and 6.7.1998 by learned Special Judicial Magistrate C.B.I. Cases, U. P., Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 99 of 1998 shall remain stayed.

I have heard Sri Kunwar Mridul Rakesh for Petitioner-applicant and Sri G. K. Pandey, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government at considerable length and have perused the record.

Learned Counsel for the applicant Sri Kunwar Mridul Rakesh has challenged the proceedings before the Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. Cases U. P., Lucknow on the following grounds:

(i) That there was no judicial order of this Court to the C.B.I. to investigate the case, hence the investigation by C.B.I. is without jurisdiction.

(ii) That filing of complaint before the Special Magistrate, C.B.I. is also without jurisdiction and complaint could have been filed only before the competent court.

(iii) That the C.B.I. has no jurisdiction to investigate a case by an administrative order of the Chief Justice of High Court.

(iv) That the C.B.I. cannot act otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1948 in which it has been provided that nothing contained in Section 5 of the said Act shall be deemed to enable any member of Delhi Special Police Establish-ment to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area in a State, not being a Union territory or railway area, without the consent of the Government of that State.

(v) That the Additional Registrar was not competent to file complaint u/s 195, Cr. P.C. as he was not a Court and the complaint was not filed under any judicial order.

(vi) That no case is made out against the applicant as there is no evidence available on record by which involvement of the Petitioner may accrue.

Since, in the instant matter, only the applicant Raza Zaheer has challenged the proceedings, hence first of all, I think that the last contention, i.e., no case is made out against the applicant and it is a case of no evidence be taken into consideration.

Let us see whether a case is made out against the applicant to prosecute him on the basis of the material and evidence on record or not.

At the very outset, it is to be noticed that on 1.8.1991 S/Shri Raza Zaheer, Anand Mohan and S. B. Verma appeared before the Division Bench comprising of Hon''ble J. K. Mathur, and Hon''ble K. C. Bhargava, JJ. (as then were) and stated that the order passed by this Court on 26.7.1991 has been subjected to over-writings and changes and they informed the Court that they were withdrawing their powers from the case. The order dated 1.8.1991 passed by the aforesaid Division Bench is as under:

Servshri Raza Zaheer, Anand Mohan and S. B. Verma, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner stated that the order passed by this Court on 26.7.1991, has been subjected to overwriting and change. They also state that they are withdrawing from this case.

There does appear some over-writing and erasing in the order. The Additional Registrar shall enquire into the matter to find out whether the order has been subjected to any change and over-writing and if so the person responsible for it. The report may be placed before Hon''ble Senior Judge for appropriate action, within two weeks.

On 13.8.1991, an order was passed on the application for interim relief and the order dated 26.7.1991 was recalled. The copies of the orders were not issued as the same were withheld on account of interpolation that had been made in the order.

First of all, it has to be seen whether making signatures before filing writ petition in the Court and after the engagement by learned Counsel is an offence and whether making signatures in place of earlier counsel who was disengaged even before the filing of writ petition in the Court and removing his Vakalatanama and substituting Vakalatnama of new counsel is an offence and whether replacing index page and also page from the ''grounds'' part and prayer clause in the writ petition before filing the writ petition in the Court would form an offence or not?

Besides other things which are to be considered hereinafter, the above points are to be considered first as it is clear-cut case on the record that applicant Raza Zaheer has made his signature on the index which was according to the allegation of the prosecution signed by Sri Amit Bose and the page of the index was changed and a new page was substituted in place of earlier page of the index. The affidavit, which was signed by the Oath Commissioner, remained as it is and there is no allegation that the contents of the writ petition were changed after swearing the affidavit, hence the allegation is only in respect of some portion/part of the writ petition, which was not part of the affidavit. There is also no evidence that the applicant-Raza Zaheer had signed the index and other pages that were part of the affidavit, erasing the signatures of Sri Amit Bose. If anybody else has erased the signatures of Sri Amit Bose and produced the writ petition before the applicant-Raza Zaheer for presentation of the same before the Court and applicant Raza Zaheer had signed thereon, would certainly not come within the ambit of Section 195, Cr. P.C. as it was done before the submission of the writ petition before the Court, i.e., before filing of document before the Court and as such, before filing of the writ petition, it was property of the Petitioner of the writ petition and he could have destroyed the whole petition and could have drafted a new petition and got the same reported from the Stamp Reporter afresh and given fresh notice of the same of the Chief Standing Counsel and then filed the same. If the Petitioner did not prefer to get the whole writ petition re-typed and to obtain fresh report from the Stamp Reporter and prefer the same to file after making certain amendments or replacing some pages that too were not part of the affidavit, certainly, no offence could have been made. Section 195, Cr. P.C. speaks as under: No Court shall take cognizance:

(a)

(i) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or

(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate ;

(b)

(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, namely Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228 when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or

(ii) of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable u/s 471, Section 475 or Section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in Sub-clause (i) or Sub-clause (ii) except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate ....

Section 195(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically denotes to the offence alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court. While as in the present case, erasing, adding something in the index, prayer clause or in the ground part is alleged to have been made by the applicant Raza Zaheer in the writ petition before its presentation in the Court. So the case of the applicant does not fall within the four corners of the provisions of the Section 195, Cr. P.C. in so far as the change of page of index, prayer or signing on the grounds is concerned.

In this connection, I have also gone through the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sachinda Nand Singh v. State of Bihar, wherein, it has been held as under:

The sequitur of the above discussion is that the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code is not applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in a Court."

The last page of the writ petition is the prayer part on which the applicant Raza Zaheer as well as Anand Mohan Advocates both have signed which is a matter of record. There is no doubt that the orders were interpolated but the question as to whether the applicant has made interpolation in the order or not has to be seen in the light of the evidence. It is also matter of consideration that in case the Petitioner did not do so whether the same was made with connivance or conspiracy or not.

It is already on record that the last page of the writ petition was signed by the applicant-Raza Zaheer and Anand Mohan Advocates but it is not in the evidence that Raza Zaheer Applicant has played any role before the writ petition was signed by him and also after presentation of the same before the Bench concerned. Further opinion of G.E.Q.D. is also very material in this case which is also liable to be considered in which only this much has been reported that the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked Section 71 to Section 84 also wrote the writings in the red enclosed parts similarly stamped and marked Q-4, Q-6 and Q-7 (original writings only). Q-4, Q-6 and Q-7 which were written by Sri S. B. Singh, Personal Assistant to Hon''ble J. K. Mathur, J. are as under:

Q-4: Hon''ble K. Narayan, J.

Hon''ble J. K. Mathur, J.

Q-6: is allowed.

Q-7: Hon''ble K. Narayan, J.

Hon''ble J. K. Mathur, J.

Further proceedings in respect of the charge-sheet before the Special Judges shall remain stayed till........

Q-5: Further order. There weeks'' time for filing of counter-affidavit by the State.

In respect of other writings, the G.E.Q.D. has opined that the remnants of the original writings are visible at places but it has not been possible to decipher the original writings. It has also not been possible to say as to who made these over-writing and alterations. It has also not been possible to express any opinion on rest of the items on the basis of the material at hand.

There is no evidence of conspiracy by applicant Raza Zaheer on record. It did not make any difference to him whether the writ petition is produced/presented before single Judge or a Division Bench and no motive has been assigned to him for presenting the petition before the Division Bench. The applicant had acted in accordance with the remarks of the Stamp Reporter handed over to him by his client after taking over the brief from Sri Amit Bose. It has not come in the evidence that the applicant Raza Zaheer had knowledge prior to presentation of the writ petition that the report of the Stamp Reporter was forged. The writ petition was presented on 26.7.1991 and on the Stay Application also, two persons, namely, applicant-Raza Zaheer and Anand Mohan Advocates had signed. On the index also, the position is same. In the complaint, it has been indicated that 27.7.1991 and 28.7.1991 were Saturday and Sunday respectively. Therefore, the next working day was Monday, i.e., 29.7.1991 but on that date two files including the file in question were missing which was later on found lying in Court No. 5 on 30.7.1991 on which date it was found that the original orders passed by the Division Bench on 26.7.1991 were tampered with and when the learned Counsel for the Petitioner of that writ petition including the applicant got information, he along with Sri Anand Mohan and S. B. Verma, Advocates appeared on 1.8.1991 and stated that the order passed by this Court has been subjected to over-writings and change and, therefore, they are withdrawing their powers from that case which is clear from the order-sheet dated 1.8.1991.

This Court is conscious that it cannot make scrutiny of the evidence and also cannot make its observations that on the basis of the evidence whether there are chances of acquittal of the applicant or not. In this connection, learned Counsel has cited case laws which are discussed below.

In Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, , the Apex Court has held as under:

Summoning of an accused on a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complaint to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put question to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. No doubt the Magistrate can discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be groundless, but that does not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court u/s 482 of the Code or Article 227 or the Constitution to have the proceeding quashed against him when the complaint does not make out any case against him and still he must undergo the agony of a criminal trial.

In Bilal Ahmed Kaloo Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, , the Apex Court has held that "Any confessional statement made to a police officer is inadmissible in evidence as for these offences and hence, it is fairly conceded that the said ban would not wane off in respect of offences under the Penal Code merely because the trial was held by the Designated Court for offences under TADA as well. Hence, the case against him would stand or fall depending on the other evidence.

In the matter of State of U.P. Vs. R.K. Srivastava and Another, , the Apex Court has held as under:

The question whether the facts disclosed in the F.I.R. constitute the offences with which the accused have been charged. It is manifestly clear from the allegations in the F.I.R. that the Respondent or the other accused had no intention whatsoever to make any wrongful gain or to make any wrongful loss to the Bank. They had accepted the said three cheques amounting to Rs. 54,600 and sent the same for clearance after debiting the L.O.C. account. The said cheques have been encashed and the money was received by the State Bank of India. It may be that there was some delay in crediting the L.O.C. account or that the money against the three cheques were credited in the accounts of the said Shri Sarwant Singh and his wife, but the allegations made either in the F.I.R. or in the charge-sheet do not show that the Respondent and the said P. C. Saxena had acted dishonestly that is to say, acted with a deliberate intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss. In our opinion the High Court has rightly held that the allegations made in the F.I.R. do not constitute any offence of cheating, nor do they constitute any offence of forgery. It is true that it has been alleged that the said sum of Rs. 54,600 was withdrawn on the basis of false credit entries made in the books of accounts of the Bank and connected credit and debit vouchers were also prepared and passed by the Respondent and the other accused. When the said sum of Rs. 54,600 has been allowed to be withdrawn by the said Shri Sarwant Singh and his wife, necessary entries had to be made in the books of accounts, but it is not understandable how these entries can be characterised as false entries. No document has been referred to in the F.I.R. as the outcome of forgery. The High Court has rightly held that as the criminal proceedings have been started against the Respondent on the basis of an F.I.R. which does not contain any definite accusation, it amounts to an abuse of process of Court and, as such, is liable to be quashed. We entirely agree with the view expressed by the High Court."

In the matter of State of Jammu and Kashmir, Vs. Romesh Chander and others, , the Apex Court has held as under:

Sri Manhas, learned Counsel appearing for the State, contends that the trial court and the High Court were not right in discharging the accused. It is necessary to mention that D.F.O. Khajaria and Chowdhary Girdhari Lal have died. Therefore, the prosecution against them stands vacated. The question is whether prima facie case has been made out against the Respondents? Sri D. D. Thakur, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondents 5 to 7, the lessee, contends that they did not commit any offence and they do not come under the provisions of either Ordinance 5 of 1986 which was quashed by the High Court or Act 7 of 1987. Therefore, no case has been made out against them, as stated earlier, we decline to consider the matter on merits for the reason that the High Court should have considered all the relevant provisions of the Act and offences and the contentions of the counsel taking into consideration the averments made in the charge-sheet. It is now settled law that the charge-sheet constitutes prima facie evidence constituting the offence for proceeding further in the matter. Necessarily, therefore, the Court has to look into the relevant law and the allegations made in the charge-sheet and then consider whether any offence has been committed to frame charges for trial before discharging the accused. Since the High Court has not done that, we think it proper that the High Court should reconsider the matter and dispose of it in accordance with law. All the contentions raised by the learned Counsel on either side are left open. It is open to the counsel to argue the matter in the High Court.

In the matter of MM Rajendran v. K. Ramakrishnan, (1997) 6 SCC 85 , it has been held as under:

We have examined the application filed by the Appellant u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complaint filed by the Respondent and the other record. In our opinion arguable questions had been missed in the petition filed by the Appellant but the same have not been dealt with at all by the learned single Judge while dismissing the petition. The impugned order is wholly cryptic. There is no discussion let alone a finding, whether the facts stated in the complaint even prima facie disclose the commission of an offence u/s 200, I.P.C. Does the complaint contain the essential ingredients of the offence alleged against the Appellant has also not been dealt with. The Appellant had inter alia raised the question of limitation as well as the necessity of obtaining sanction for his prosecution, those also have not been considered. Under the circumstances the impugned order cannot be sustained.

It is no comfortable thought for the Appellants to be told that they could appear before the Court which is at a far off place in the Ghazipur in the State of Uttar Pradesh, seek their release on bail and then to either move an application u/s 245(2) of the Code or to face trial when the complaint and the preliminary evidence recorded makes out no case against them. It is certainly one of those cases where there is an abuse of the process of the law and the Courts and the High Court should not have shied away in exercising its jurisdiction. Provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code are devised to advance justice and not too frustrate it. In our view High Court should not have adopted such a rigid approach which certainly has had led to miscarriage of justice in the case. Power of judicial review is discretionary but this was a case where the High Court should have exercised it.

In the matter of R.P. Kapur Vs. The State of Punjab, , the Apex Court has held as under:

There may be cases where it may be possible for the High Court to take the view that the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused person may amount to the abuse of the process of the Court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice. If the criminal proceeding in question is in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by an accused person and it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceedings. The High Court would be justified in quashing the proceeding on that ground, absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category. Cases may also arise where the allegation in the first information report or the complaint come even if they were taken at their face by their face value and accepted in there entirely, not constitute the offence alleged, in such cases no question of appreciation of evidence arises ; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the first information report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In such cases it would be legitimate for the High Court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the criminal court to be issued against the requisite person. A third category of cases in which the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be successfully invoked may also arise. In cases falling under this category the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either legal evidence adduced in support of the case or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of cases, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the acquisition made and in cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support the acquisition in question. In exercising its jurisdiction u/s 561A the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry faced to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate. Inordinately it would not be open to any party to invoke the High Courts inherent jurisdiction in contending that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the acquisition made against the accused would not be sustained. Broadly stated that is the nature and scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 561A in the matter of quashing criminal proceedings, and that is the effect of the judicial decision on the point.

In the matter of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , the Apex Court has held as under:

In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in the series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guideline or rigid formulae and to give inexhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such powers should be exercised.

(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 allegation in the first information report and the other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 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 uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegation in the F.I.R. 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 u/s 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegation made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can even 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 situated to the institution in continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code for 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 the matter of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others, , the Supreme Court has held as under: "Thus, it may be safely held that in the following cases, an order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed or set aside:

(1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statement of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused ;

(2) Where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can even reach, a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused ;

(3) Where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible ; and

(4) Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as want of sanction, or absence of complaint by legally competent authority and the like.

I have gone though the view expressed by the Apex Court in the case of Mary Angel and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, , in which their Lordships have held as under:

In the result, we hold that while exercising inherent jurisdiction u/s 482, Cr. P.C., Court has power to pass ''such orders'' (not inconsistent with any provision of the Code) including the order for costs in appropriate cases, (i) to give effect to any order passed under the Code or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or (iii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. As stated above, this extraordinary power is to be used in extraordinary circumstances and in a judicious manner...

In the instant matter, a perusal of the record shows that on the index, signatures of the applicant Raza Zaheer did not only find place but Sri Anand Mohan has also put his signatures. On the last page, i.e., prayer part, both the applicant and Sri Anand Mohan have made their signatures. There is no evidence of conspiracy to have been done by the applicant. There is no evidence by which an inference can be drawn that there was last involvement of the applicant in the commission of alleged offence. There is also no evidence that the applicant had interpolated the orders or the same were interpolated with his connivance. A mere making signature on the writ petition before filing the same in the Court does not constitute an offence. Hence, it is a fit case where this Court may exercise its jurisdiction u/s 482, Cr. P.C. as it is a matter worth consideration that in case, in the instant matter, the proceedings are allowed to continue against the applicant, whole exercise would be futile one in the absence of evidence against the Petitioner-applicant and in that case, whether the proceedings should be allowed to continue against the applicant and whether will it not cause unnecessary harassment to the applicant and whether continuance of proceedings would not be an abuse of process of the Court.

Since, it has come to the notice of this Court that no case is made out against the applicant on the basis of material available on record and the proceedings against the applicant Raza Zaheer are liable to be quashed on this ground alone and, therefore, there is no need to consider other points raised by learned Counsel for the applicant.

Certainly, against the applicant-Raza Zaheer, there is no evidence. Hence, it is a case of no evidence and in such circumstances, if the complaint is allowed to proceed against the applicant, it will be an abuse of process of Court. Therefore, it is in the interest of justice that the proceedings against the applicant-Raza Zaheer be quashed on the ground of case being of no evidence.

In the result, the petition is allowed. The proceedings against the applicant as well as taking cognizance by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. Cases, U. P., Lucknow in Case No. 99 of 1998 and summoning the applicant on that basis are hereby quashed. Let the record be transmitted to the learned court below for proceeding further in respect of other accused persons.