Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42375 of 2019 Applicant :- Chandan Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
The applicants, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding as well as the summoning order dated 25.10.2018, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 09, Varanasi in Complaint Case No. 4546 of 2017 (Doodhnath Vs. Chandan and others), under Section 417 I.P.C. at Police Station Chetganj, District Varanasi, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 09, Varanasi.
Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for applicants argued that the entire criminal proceeding of above mentioned complaint case is misuse of process of law. Applicants Chandan Singh and Atul Kumar Singh were Branch Manager and employee of VIBGYOR Allied Infrastructure Limited. They were like agents, who were making deposits under assurance of refund of same after maturity. Subsequently, both of them have resigned from their job. A criminal case was got lodged against Director of above Company as Case Crime No. 280 of 2016, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. upon report of Atul Kumar Singh at Police Station Chetganj. Applicants are victim of above offences, but they have been summoned so. Hence, this application with above prayer.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer.
From the very perusal of statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and Section 202 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that applicant Chandan Singh and Atul Kumar Singh were working at the office of concerned company at Hathua Market and they assured by their conduct for return of above deposited amount after its maturity and on that assurance money was deposited. Subsequently, it was found to be a cheating punishable under Section 417 I.P.C.. Victim themselves were cheated by Managing Director of company concerned is a question of other fact, but regarding complainant he was cheated by applicants. Hence, this summoning was there. It was challenged before court of revision, where it was dismissed and summoning order was confirmed. The summoning order was passed on the basis of evidence collected by Magistrate in its inquiry, which is on record.
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 view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants the application so far as it relates to seeking quashing of the impugned summoning order as well as the entire proceeding, stands dismissed.
However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their 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.
For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicant do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid observations, this application is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 NS