Court No. - 42
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7298 of 2019 Applicant :- Abhay Raj And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lakshmi Kant Pandey,Ravi Shankar Vishwakarma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Abhay Raj, Parasu Raj, Asha Devi and Deepa agaist State of U.P. and another with a prayer for quashing summoning order as well as entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 15 of 2017 (Smt. Lalti Devi Vs. Abhay Raj and others), under Sections 323, 427, 452 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Koerauna, District Bhadohi.
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that a complaint case against complainant side was filed in which summoning order was there and this complaint has been filed as a counter blast of same, hence, this application.
Perusal of impugned order reveals that complaint was filed in which Magistrate took cognizance. Complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and her two witnesses Sukhdeve and Usha Devi examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and after hearing learned counsel for the complainant, this summoning order against Abhay Raj, Parasu Raj, Asha Devi and Deepa was passed for offenece punishable under Section 323, 427, 452 and 506 I.P.C. Factual aspect, argued, is not to be analyzed in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court. Law propounded by Apex Court and this Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as under:-
"Saving of inherent power of High Court, as given under Section 482 Cr.P.C, provides that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Meaning thereby this inherent power is with High Court (I) to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any other order under this Code (II) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court (III) or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767: 2010 Cr. LJ 3844 has propounded that "While exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable apprehension of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge/Court". In another subsequent Hamida v. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474, hon'ble Apex Court propounded that "Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 at an interlocutory stage which after filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed procedure, or to delay the trial which enable to win over the witness or may disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately resulting in miscarriage of Justice". In again another subsequent Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781, the Apex Court has propounded "Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself." While interpreting this jurisdiction of High Court Apex Court in Popular Muthiah v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296 has propounded "High Court can exercise jurisdiction suo motu in the interest of justice. It can do so while exercising other jurisdictions such as appellate or revisional jurisdiction. No formal application for invoking inherent jurisdiction is necessary. Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised in respect of substantive as well as procedural matters. It can as well be exercised in respect of incidental or supplemental power irrespective of nature of proceedings".
Regarding prevention of abuse of process of Court, Apex Court in Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana Kumar, (1990) Cr LJ 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494 has propounded "To prevent abuse of the process of the Court, High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482 could quash the proceedings but there would be justification for interference only when the complaint did not disclose any offence or was frivolous vexatious or oppressive" as well as in State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr LJ 1005: AIR 1989 SC 1, Apex Court propounded "In exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 High Court would not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not".
Meaning thereby, exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded as above. In the present case, complainant was examined, heard, two witnesses were examined in which occurrence of 9.7.2016 of 12:00 P.M. reported by all those witnesses, hence, summoning order as passed and factual analysis of same is not to be made. Under all above facts and circumstances, this proceedings merits its dismissal.
Hence, present application is dismissed, accordingly.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days and no more, from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 Kamarjahan