Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38191 of 2019 Applicant :- Arvind Sharma And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shabana Nizam,Satyendra Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants Arvind Sharma and six others against State of U.P. and Smt. Aneeta with prayer to quash the summoning order dated 17.6.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Mau, as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2680 of 2018, Aneeta Devi Vs. Arvind Sharma and others, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C., P.S. Mohamadabad, district Mau, pending in court of J. M., Mau.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that this was a false implication on the basis of forged and fictitious medical report, which was related with other case crime no. 345 of 2018 P.S. Mohamdabad Gohna and it was used in this complaint proceeding fraudulently, whereas there had been a civil dispute in between, wherein an order was passed in favour of applicants, but an occurrence of assault was made by accused persons for which Case Crime No. 344 of 2018 was got registered as P.S. Mohammdabad on 13.9.2018 at 16.00 hours on the report of Arvind Sharma against Rajesh Yadav and ten others. Then after this false complaint with false accusation was filed after a considerable delay of one month, wherein there was material discrepancy and contradictions in the statements of complainant and witnesses. Even then this summoning order was passed. It was misuse of process of law. Hence, in order to secure ends of justice this application with above prayer has been filed.
4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed.
5. From the perusal of contention of complaint, it is apparent that the occurrence is same of 14.30 hours of 13.9.2018 for which case crime no. 344 of 2018 was got registered on 13.9.2018 at 16.40 hours, wherein present complainant is an accused at Sl.No. 10 and this was said in this FIR that in a civil suit there was an order and Amin visited spot when this occurrence took place, wherein both of injured complainant and one other were badly beaten by accused persons. The same is contention of applicants in above case crime no. 344 of 2018. Medico legal report is of Crime No. 345 of 2018 i.e. immediately after and in sequence of Crime No. 344 of 2018. It reveals that at the time of medico legal examination, these two cases were held to be cross cases filed against each other. But subsequently this case crime no. 345 of 2018 was not got registered for this cross case and then some other case was registered on the said crime number and for the same occurrence this complaint was filed, wherein statements u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were got recorded and impugned summoning order was passed. Hence for one and the same occurrence for which applicants had filed Case Crime No. 344 of 2018 and the accused side filed above complaint case. Hence, it cannot be said that summoning order has been passed without any evidence. This court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is not expected to meticulously analyse the facts and evidence as it is matter of trial to be seen during trial.
6. 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".
7. 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".
8. Meaning thereby, exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded as above.
9. The prayer for quashing summoning order as well as proceeding of the aforesaid criminal case is refused.
10. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
11. However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within four weeks from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants 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 judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
12. For a period of four weeks from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
13. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019/ Pcl