Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42244 of 2019
Applicant :- Kallu And 2 Ors
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Sunder Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
The applicants namely, Kallu, Bachchi Lal and Mewalal, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court with prayer for quashing of entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1 of 2018 (Mahavir Vs. Kallu and Others), under Section 379/34, 504/34, 323/34, 506/34 of IPC, Police Station- Khaga, District Fatehpur, pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Khaga, Fatehpur. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that it was a false accusation in counter blast to Case Crime No. 488 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)X of SC/ST Act, P.S. Khaga, District Fatehpur, filed by Mewalal against Mahaveer and his sons Dharmendra and Rajkumar, which was got registered on 20.11.2017 and wherein charge-sheet has been filed. This complaint was filed under manipulation by complainant. The statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C, were not in consonance with the contention of complaint. Hence, for ensuring end of justice, this application has been filed with above prayer.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the above prayer.
Having heard learned counsels for both sides and gone through the material placed on record, it is apparent that complaint was filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khaga, with this contention that on 20.11.2017, at about 11:00 A.M., while complainant was removing paddy chaff of Kallu, kept at the field of complainant. It was protested by him. He along with other accused persons did assault, abuse and extend threat of dire consequences. In this occurrence Rs. 2,000/-, was snatched by Bachchi Lal. Upon hue and cry, Rajendar Prasad, Rajkumar and many others have rushed there and intervened. Matter was instantly reported to police station but case was not got registered whereas complainant and his two sons was medically examined at Community Health Center, Khaga. An attempt to got case lodged was made but of no avail. Hence, this complaint with above prayer. Magistrate examined complainant under Section 200 and his two witnesses under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. There is full reiteration of contention of complaint. Moreso, for the same occurrence of same date, time and place, a criminal case was got registered by accused wherein charge- sheet was filed. Meaning thereby, occurrence was being said to have been happened on above date, time and place. It was reported by one side, wherein, charge-sheet was filed. The same has been reiterated in this complaint. Magistrate, who took cognizance examined PW-1 and PW-2, under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. after examining complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and there was full reiteration in it. Hence, this summoning was passed, which was with substance, on record. This Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court is not expected to make analytical analysis of evidence and fact of the case, as the same is the question before 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 view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days and no more 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 Supreme Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally
disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 Kamarjahan