Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42459 of 2019 Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Kashyap 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 Applicant, Krishna Kumar Sharma, against State of U.P. and Shyam Narayan Yadav, with a prayer for setting aside summoning order, dated 31.01.2019, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia, in Misc. Application No.3891/2018, in Complaint Case No. 226 of 2018 (Shyam Naryan Yadav vs. Krishan Kumar Sharma), under Sections 420, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code., as well as Bailable Warrant, dated 4.10.2019, Police Station, Kotwali, District- Ballia, pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia.
Learned counsel for applicants argued that no agreement to sale was ever executed, rather, money was transacted by the informant- complainant on 1.5.2015 and on the very next day, deed of sale was got executed. Subsequent sale deed was executed by the applicant on 15.5.2017 and the applicant was of no concern with it. Hence, it was a false accusation and utter misuse of process of law, wherein, impugned summoning order has been passed. Hence, this Application, with above prayer, for avoiding abuse of process of law and securing ends of justice, this Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed.
Learned AGA, representing State of U.P., has vehemently opposed this Application.
From very perusal of the Application, under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., and statements, recorded, under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C., it is apparent that money transacted was Rs.19,50,000/-, in the account of the applicant, whereas, sale deed was for consideration of Rs.9,50,000/- Hence, remaining amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was still due against the applicant.
Learned counsel for applicant submitted that for making a theft of stamp duty, sale consideration of Rs.9.50,000/- was shown, whereas, it was for a consideration of Rs.19,50,000/-, which was paid by the complainant.
Meaning thereby, it was a case of theft of stamp duty. Total consideration was Rs.19,50,000/-, but, it was shown in the sale deed as Rs.9,50,000. This itself constitutes offence, punishable, under Section 420 of IPC, alongwith other sections of IPC. Moreso, the fact said in the complaint, has been reiterated in the statement, recorded, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, which stood corroborated by the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Hence, factual aspect is not to be analytically analysed in this proceeding by this Court, in exercise of inhere int power, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Further, learned Magistrate is to consider, on the basis of the statement, as to whether there is a case of fraud because revenue of stamp duty has been intentionally evaded by showing false consideration in the registered sale deed.
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 judgment, in the case of 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 yet another judgment, in the case of 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 the case of 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 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 dismissed and it stands dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 bgs/