Court No. - 34
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3281 of 2004
Applicant :- Abdul Samad And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pratik Chandra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,A.N. Singh
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Pratik Chandra, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.
2. This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing summoning order dated 28.08.2003 passed Judicial Magistrate, Konch, Jalaun in Complaint Case No. 431 of 2003 under Section 500 I.P.C. as well as the entire proceedings in aforesaid Complaint case. However, it is evident from the order that same has been passed on the basis of allegations as contained in the complaint and statement of complainant recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. It cannot be said that there is any jurisdictional error on the part of Court below or that no offence having been committed by the applicants is made out. There is no occasion therefore, to quash the summoning order.
3. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised lightly and in a routine manner. It is for limited purpose namely to give effect to any order passed by the Court or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.
4. Time and again, Apex Court and various High Courts, including ours one, have reminded when exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be justified, which cannot be placed in straight jacket formula, but one thing is very clear that it should not preampt a trial and cannot be used in a routine manner so as to cut short the entire process of trial before the Courts below. If from a bare perusal of first information report or complaint, it is evident that it does not disclose any offence at all or it is frivolous, collusive or oppressive from the face of it, the Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but it should be exercised sparingly. This will not include as to whether prosecution is likely to establish its case or not, whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, accusation would not be sustained, or the other circumstances, which would not justify exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
5. Very recently in Criminal Appeal No.675 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1151 of 2018) (Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) decided on 15th April, 2019, Supreme Court observed as to what should be examined by High Court in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and in paras 15, 16 and 17 said as under:
“15. The High Court should have seen that when a specific grievance of the appellant in his complaint was that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC, then the question to be examined is as to whether there are allegations of commission of these two offences in the complaint or not. In other words, in order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizable is made out or not, the Court is only required to see the allegations made in the complaint. In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this material question, the impugned order is legally unsustainable.
16. The second error is that the High Court in para 6 held that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses on the point of occurrence.
17. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case.” (emphasis added)
6. No material irregularity in the procedure followed by Court below has been pointed out. It is not a case of grave injustice justifying interference in this application at this stage.
7. Dismissed.
8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 PS