1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants for quashing the summoning order dated 28.02.2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Bisalpur, Pilibhit as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.742 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 402 of 2017, under Sections 384, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Deoria Kalan, District Pilibhit, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bisalpur, Pilibhit.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case on account of civil dispute. They have committed no offence. He further submitted that initially an F.I.R. was got registered in the matter on an application made by informant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate concerned. The matter was investigated and during investigation, Investigating Officer found civil dispute between the parties. In the statement of Smt. Sunita Devi recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it was admitted by her that a civil dispute between her and aunt of accused person was going on regarding land which was lying in front of her house. Investigating Officer submitted final report, finding no evidence in the investigation. It is further submitted that a protest application was made by complainant before the Magistrate which was directed to be registered as complaint case but Magistrate pass the impugned summoning order without proper appreciation of evidence and without proper application of judicial mind. He further argued that the complainant opposite party no. 2 herein has tried to settle her dispute of civil nature by setting a criminal prosecution into motion which is not permissible in eyes of law. He showed some papers and statements in favour of his contention.
4. Per contra learned AGA vehemently opposed the application and submitted that accused-applicants demanded Rs. 2 lacs from the complainant by showing fear of viral naked videos / photographs of her daughter in social media and internet. Entire submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants is on fact of the case which cannot be adjudicated at this stage under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and it is a matter of evidence whether they have been falsely implicated or not.
5. As per complaint, on 17.10.2017 at about 6:00 p.m., accused-applicants Pankaj and Guddu came to the house of complainant and told that they have naked video film of her daughter and demanded Rs. 2 lacs within a week for shutting their mouth. The F.I.R. was registered on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., matter was investigated and final report was submitted before the Court of Magistrate. The complainant filed a protest application which was directed to be registered a complaint case. The Magistrate recorded the statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statement of of Laxmi Devi and Rita Devi under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate finding sufficient ground for proceeding, issued summing order dated 28.02.2020 which is under challenged in the present application.
6. It is well settled that exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is the exception and not the rule. Under this section, the High Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But the expressions "abuse of process of law" or "to secure the ends of justice" do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law, including procedural law and not otherwise.
7. A look at application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., protest application, statement of complainant and witnesses recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. as well as allegations made herein would show that victim / opposite party no. 2 herein, incorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the accused-applicants for the offence alleged. The question whether the victim will be able to prove the allegation in the manner known to law would arise only at a later stage. It cannot be said that prima-facie case is not made out against the applicant.
8. In Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 259, Court has held that it is not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging. If the factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint, the court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during the investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details.
9. In Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar and others, (2019) 6 SCC 107, 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)
10. Recently, Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1817 of 2019 (M. Jayanthi Vs. K.R. Meenakshi and another) decided on 02.12.2019 has held:
"It is too late in the day to seek reference to any authority for the proposition that while invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing a complaint or a charge, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that constitute certain offences complained of. The Court may also be entitled to see (i) whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not; and (ii) whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not constitute the offence alleged."
11. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for parties and keeping in view the facts and legal proposition discussed hereinabove, I do not find any good ground warranting interference in the matter. It is not a case of grave injustice.
12. Accordingly, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.2.2021 Manoj