JUDGMENT
Dalveer Bhandari, J.
(1) The respondent has initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioners. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have prayed that criminal proceedings pending against them be quashed. In prayer (B), it is mentioned that the proceedings of the cases mentioned in Annexure-19 may be stayed. The details as mentioned in Annexure-19 are set out as under: 1.Shri I.C. Tewari, M.M. Delhi, Complaint filed under Sections 380/104,I.P.C. and 403,406,420,409,467,477-A, 166, 167, 219 read with Sections 107, 114,34, 120-B, Ipc -Complaint no.31/l of 1989 2. Shri Babu Lal, M.M. New Delhi, Complaint under Sections 380,403,406,452 read with Sections 109,114, 34, 120-B, I Pc -Case no-509/90 3. Shri P.D. Gupta, Senior Sub Judge, Delhi, Mandatory Injunction Suit no.336/89 4. Shri J.R. Aryan, M.M. New Delhi, Complaint under Section 211/500.IPC 5. Shri Padam Singh, Addl. Sessions Judge, Revision Petition filed under Section 398,399,401, Cr.P.C. Revision Petition no.58/90 6. Shri Brijesh Sethi, M.M. New Delhi. Complaint under Section 500 read with Section 107, 114, 34 of Ipc 7. Shri Babu Lal, M.M. New Delhi Complaint under Section 211/500 Ipc 8. Shri J.R. Aryan, M.M. New Delhi Complaint under Section 211/500,IPC
(2) Annexure 19 admittedly includes Civil Suit no. 336/89 pending in the Court of Shri P.D. Gupta, Senior Sub Judge, Delhi. The suit pertains to mandatory injunction. In proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, civil suit pending before the trial court cannot either be stayed or dismissed.
(3) The petitioners and respondent are brothers and sisters. This unfortunate litigation amongst the close family members is bitter, acrimonious, virulent and venomous. This court has made earnest efforts to resolve the differences amongst the family members and the matter has been adjourned for recording fair, reasonable and honourable settlement and compromise between the parties, but in spite of the best efforts of the court, compromise could not have been arrived at.
(4) It seems emotions in these matters have overpowered rationality. There are serious allegations and counter allegations in various complaints and cases which have been instituted. The veracity of those averments and allegations can be tested only at the stage of trial. It would be premature to comment on averments and allegations mentioned by the petitioners and the respondents at this stage. The court is fully conscious that any observation made at this stage are likely to prejudice further proceedings and trial of these cases which are pending amongst the parties.
(5) The petitioners and the respondent have been seriously contesting this unfortunate litigation in various courts for the last several years. Apart from making oral submissions in the court, both the petitioners and the respondent have cited large number of cases decided by the Supreme Court and other courts. Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on number of cases for the proposition that where the allegations set out in the complaint or charge sheet do not constitute any offence, then this court in its inherent power may quash the order taking cognipzance of the offence. Ms. Shashi Kiran, placed reliance on Dr. Sharda Prasad Sinha vs. State of Bihar vs. State of Bihar, , Trilok Singh and other svs.Satya Deo Tripathi, . , Balkishan Doss vs. P.C. Nayar, 1991, CR.L.J.1837, Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Birendra Chandra Chakravarty, , Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and others vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others . She has also brought to the notice of the court,the cases pertaining to criminal breach of trust, cheating, etc. of various High Courts. On the other hand, Shri Gandhi, learned counsel for the respondent strongly repudiated the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. He has taken the preliminary objection that the instant petition is a total abuse of the process. He had mentioned that in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, proceedings of the Civil suit cannot either be stayed or quashed. He had further submitted that the petition contains bristling mis-statement and prevarications and it is intrinsically based on disputed questions of fact which cannot be agitated in the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code before this Court.
(6) It was also submitted on behalf of the respondents that the objection is premature in respect of criminal cases such as those listed in serial nos-2,5,7 and 8 of Annexure 19 which are still at pre-summoning stage in which the petitioners have no locus standi to intervene.
(7) The learned counsel for the respondent has also pointed out various cases in support of its contention. The learned counsel places reliance on State of Bihar vs. Raj Narain Singh . In this case, the Supreme Court reversed the order of the High Court and observed, “We are of the opinion that the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the prosecution at the preliminary stage. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the decision of the High Court.” The petitioner has also placed reliance on Mrs.Dhanatakshmi vs. R. Prasanna Kumar and others, 1990 Crl. L. J.320. In this case, the Supreme Court has clearly spelt out Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and mentioned that the inherent powers must be invoked only in exceptional cases. The relevant observations of the Judgment are set out as under:- “Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to he-read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court.
(8) In this judgment, the court has also observed that if there are allegations in the complaint, disclosing the ingredients of the offence taken cognizance of, it is for the complainant to substantiate the allegations by evidence at a later stage. In the absence of circumstances to hold prima facie that the complaint is frivolous when the complaint does disclose the commission of an offence there is no justification for the High Court to interfere.
(9) On the basis of all these Judgments, the position which clearly emerges is that powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly in very exceptional circumstances where either there is manifest injustice or the entire proceedings are without jurisdiction or there is legal infirmity on the face of it.
(10) In my opinion, the present petition does not come in the category of those extremely exceptional cases in which this court should exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quash the proceedings. Ultimately these cases may or may not succeed but it would be difficult to hold that allegations set out in the complaints are totally false and frivolous and do not constitute the offence of which cognizance can be taken by the Magistrate.
(11) Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the petition is accordingly dismissed.