Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39987 of 2019 Applicant :- Makkhan Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar 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, Makkhan Singh, Maharaj Singh, Pavan and Raju, against State of U.P. and Indrawati, with a prayer for setting aside summoning order, dated 25.3.2019, alongwith entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Complaint Case No. 115 of 2017, Indrawati vs. Makkhan Singh and others, under Sections 323, 379, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station- Hathras Junction, Distric-Hathras, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Hathras.
Learned counsel for applicants argued that Makkhan Singh had got a case registered against Amit, Ajit and Yadram, on 8.4.2016, for offences, punishable, under Sections 147, 148, 324, 504 and 427 of IPC, read with 3(1)(x) of the S.C./S.T. Act, for an occurrence of 7.4.2016, at about 9.00 PM, wherein, investigation resulted in submission of chargesheet for offences, punishable, under Sections 147, 148, 324, 504 and 427 of IPC, read with 3(1)(x) of the S.C./S.T. Act, against accused persons. Present complaint case is a counterblast of previous case and a false case has been got lodged by Opposite party no.2, Indrawati, wherein, present applicants have been summoned for above offence. Applicant no.1 is a retired government teacher, having no criminal antecedent. There is a misuse of process of law, hence, present proceeding, with above prayer, for ensuring ends of justice.
Learned AGA, representing State of U.P., has vehemently opposed this Application.
From very perusal of the complaint, it is apparent that it was filed by Smt. Indrawati against applicants with specific contention that on 19.2.2017, at about 8.30 PM, Makkhan and Maharaj Singh came at her shop, where, they took some articles and cigarate, but did not pay for it. When, money was demanded for purchased articles, they hurled abuse and on being protested assault was made. They called Pawan and Raju thereat, who, too, became abusive and also assaulted. They took Rs.725/-, cash, from the counter. Magistrate took cognizance over it and complainant was examined, under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein, she reiterated her contention, which stood further corroborated by testimony of CW-1 and CW-2, i.e., Dinesh Lawania and Tulsi, who were examined, under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.
Hence, summoning order, passed for offences, punishable, under above Sections of IPC, was based on above evidences, collected by the Magistrate, in his enquiry, made under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. Ground taken by the applications of investigation of previous Case Crime number, wherein, chargesheet has been filed, may be a cause of this occurrence or result of this occurrence or otherwise, all this is to be looked at, during course of trial, by the Trial court. This Court, in exercise of inherent power, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not expected to meticulously analyze factual aspect because the same is to be considered, during course of trial, by the 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 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.
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 applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 bgs/