Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46218 of 2019
Applicant :- Hari Om And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Puneet Bhadauria Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
The applicants namely, Hari Om, Rahul, Shivnath, Amarnath, Rinku, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court with prayer to quash the summoning order dated 18.3.2019, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Etawah, as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 396 of 2017 (Sarvesh Vs. Hariom and others), under Sections- 323, 325, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Lavaidi, District- Etawah, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Etawah Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that it is a counter blast case, under misuse of process of law because applicants were assaulted by complainant and others, on the same day of occurrence, on 23.10.2017, at about 8:00 A.M., for which case crime No. 125 of 2017, was got registered at P.S. Lavaidi, and this case crime number was investigated, wherein, charge-sheet was filed. After one month of same, this false case, by way of complaint was filed, mentioning a concocted story of the occurrence of 5:30 P.M. of same date of 23.10.2017, whereas, no such occurrence was ever took place. Hence, apparently, it was abuse of process of court. Hence, for ensuring end of justice, this application has been filed with above prayer.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the above prayer.
From the very perusal of compliant, it is apparent that on 23.10.2017, at about 5:30 P.M., while complainant was at his home, those accused persons Hari Om, Rahul, Shivnath, Amarnath, Rinku, under joint mensrea, did criminal trespass inside the house of complainant, they all abused and made assault, resulting grievous injury to complainant. Complainant had lodged his protest at police station, but, of no avail. Hence, this complaint. Magistrate took cognizance, examined complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and his two witnesses Balbeer Singh and Sarvesh Kumar, under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.
The statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 and his two witnesses recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., are fully intact and in reiteration and corroboration of complaint version. The same is supported by medical evidence too, wherein grievous injury, was there. Accordingly, Magistrate passed impugned order of summoning for offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. The previous occurrence and registration of case crime number, may be a reason for this false implication as well as reason for this subsequent assault but in either way, it is a question of fact, to be seen by trial court during trial.
This Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not expected to embark upon factual matrix because the is be seen by trial court.
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. The impugned order was well based on evidence and facts collected by Magistrate in its enquiry. Hence, this proceeding merits its dismissal.
Dismissed, accordingly.
However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within thirty (30) days 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.
For a period of thirty (30) days 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.
However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below, within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid directions, this application stands disposed of, accordingly.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 Kamarjahan