Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46383 of 2019 Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rizwan Ahamad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants Manoj Kumar Singh and 3 others against State of U.P. and Manav Devi with prayer to quash summoning order dated 19.12.2017 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1242 of 2017, Smt. Manav Devi Vs. Manoj Kumar and others, u/s 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. and N.B.W. dated 05.10.2019, pending in court of A.C.J.M., Court No. 17, Allahabad.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that a criminal case for offence of murder was got registered against complainant side and as a counter blast this case was got manufactured, wherein no medical report is there nor any assault of any nature was there over person of complainant, whereas her husband was said to be inside house. It is improbable and concocted one. This was misuse of process of law. Hence this application with above prayer.
4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the above argument.
5. From the very perusal of complaint, it is apparent that occurrence was of 9.4.2017 at 4.00 P.M. when complainant Manav Devi was at her home, the accused Manoj Kumar Singh, Dan Bahadur, Uma Devi and Guddi Devi did criminal trespass, assaulted her with danda and iron rod, abused and threat was there. This fact is reiterated in the statement recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and corroborated by the statement recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Previous registration of case for murder may be a reason for counter blast or a reason for this attack. But in either way this fact is to be seen by the trial court. At the stage of section 204 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate has to determine as to whether any offence prima-facie is made out for summoning accused. In the present case the Magistrate applied his judicial mind to the evidence collected during his enquiry and summoned the applicants for the offences punishable u/s 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C.
6. This court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is not expected to meticulously analyse the facts and evidence as it is matter of trial to be seen during trial.
7. Saving of inherent power of High Court, as given under Section 482 Cr.P.C, provides that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Meaning thereby this inherent power is with High Court (I) to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any other order under this Code (II) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court (III) or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But 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".
8. 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".
9. Meaning thereby, exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded as above.
10. Accordingly, there remains nothing for any indulgence in this proceeding. The prayer for quashing summoning order as well as proceeding of the aforesaid complaint case is refused and the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
11. However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within thirty 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.
12. For a period of thirty 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.
13. 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 :- 19.12.2019 Pcl