Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42485 of 2019
Applicant :- Radheshyam And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Chand Saroj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
The applicants namely, Radheshyam, Bhanumati and Soni, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court with prayer for quashing of summoning order dated 25.09.2018, as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 558 of 2018 (Mohanlal Vs. Radheshyam and Others), under Section 323, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station Singramau, District Jaunpur. 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 this was a false accusation as a counter blast against criminal case lodged by applicant and this with a delay of six months for the occurrence, which was said by the applicants and it was summoning without substance on record. Malicious was there. Hence, in view of law propounded by Apex Court in State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors, 1992 AIR 604, the above proceeding be also quashed.
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 applicant moved under and treated as complaint case, it is there taht on 7.9.2017 on about 7:00 A.M. while complainant was working at his filed Bhanumati and Soni came there. They abused and cut prank. This was protested in between Radheshyam came, occurrence took place, wherein, under joint mensrea, Radheshyam, Bhanumati and Soni, gave assault by hands and feet and by lathi-danda. On hue and cry, Munnilal, Sandeep and many others rushed there, they intervened. Accused persons extended threat of dire consequences ran from spot. This fact has been said by complainant in his statement recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The same is intact in the statement recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and impugned summoning order was passed on the basis of above evidences, collected by Magistrate, in his inquiry, recorded as above.
This Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not expected to make analytical analysis of evidence and fact of the case, as the same is the question before trial court.
The previous case, registered by applicants against complainant, may be a motive for this subsequent occurrence or it may be the cause for this subsequent occurrence. But, these facts are to be seen by trial court in its trial. As per law propounded by 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.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 Kamarjahan