Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46254 of 2019 Applicant :- Jagdish Prajapati And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akshaivar Singh,Abhishek Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
This Application, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Applicants, Jagdish Prajapati and Mohakkam, with a prayer for setting aside summoning order, dated 24.5.2019, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur, and, thereby, entire criminal proceeding, in Complaint Case No. 18302 of 2017, Mohd. Mubeen vs. Jagdish Prajapati and another, under Sections-420, 406 and 504 of IPC, Police Station-Gagalhedi, District-Saharanpur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur.
Learned counsel for applicants argued that it is a false prosecution, under misuse of process of law. Applicants are poor labourers, who are engaged in their work of clay and pot making. There is no concern nor there is any occasion for giving assurance or taking money for getting appointment of son of complainant nor any such thing occurred. Witnesses, examined, under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., are sons of complainant. No independent enquiry is there, but, even then, applicants have been summoned. Hence, for avoiding abuse of process of law and for ensuring ends of justice, this Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed, with above prayer.
Learned AGA, representing State of U.P., has vehemently opposed this Application.
From very perusal of the complaint, it is apparent that it was alleged therein that Mohakkam, who is a Driver, at U.P. Roadways, assured for getting complainant's son employed in Roadways. This assurance was given by Jagdish Prajapati, applicant no.1, too, and, while giving this assurance, Rs. Two Lakhs, with documents, pertaining to School records, were taken by the applicants, Jagdish Prajapati and Mohakkam on 25.1.2017, at 8.30 AM, in the presence of Muntiyaz and Qurban and a blank stamp was signed by Mohakkam, but, subsequently, no appointment was there nor money was returned back. On enquiry being made from Roadways Office, it came to the notice of the complainant that there was no vacancy nor any selection process was going on. When money was demanded back, accused persons, applicants herein, did abuse and extended threat. This contention is very well there in the statement, recorded, under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. There is full reiteration.
At the time of passing of summoning order, under Section 204 of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is to opine, by application of his judicial mind, that prima facie there is a ground for summoning and in present case, ingredients, as required for passing summoning order, were very well there on record.
Hence, under all above facts and circumstances, this Court, in exercise of inherent power, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not expected to embark upon factual matrix because the same is to be gone into, during course of trial, by the Trial court.
Regarding prevention of abuse of process of Court, Apex Court, in the case of 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 the case of 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 what has been discussed above, this Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., merits dismissal and it stands dismissed accordingly.
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.
In case, if the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 bgs/