Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42188 of 2019 Applicant :- Raja Ram Yadav And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Veer Singh 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, Raja Ram Yadav, Rajendra, Ram Shiromadi, Kallu, Nagendra and Lallu, against State of U.P. and Bhagirathi, with a prayer for setting aside summoning order, dated 23.7.2019, passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, and, thereby, entire criminal proceeding, in Complaint Case No. 6041 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 392 of IPC.
Learned counsel for applicants argued that there is a litigation in between the parties, with regard to lease of land before the Revenue court and no such occurrence has ever occurred. It was a false accusation and malicious complaint and utter misuse of process of court, wherein, Sub Inspector of Police has filed his report, over an application, moved, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., that no such occurrence ever took place. Alleged B.D.C. Member and Village Pradhan, who were said to be present on the spot, have filed their affidavit, denying any such occurrence. In a previous complaint, there was summoning, hence, subsequent complaint has been filed with a motive for harassing applicants. Hence, for avoiding abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice, this Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed, with above prayer.
Learned AGA, representing State of U.P., has vehemently opposed this Application.
Fromm very perusal of the impugned summoning order, it is apparent that the same was passed on the basis of statement, recorded by the Magistrate, under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C., which are fully intact and in corroboration with contents of complaint. Investigation report of the Investigating Officer itself mentioned that there is a dispute, regarding leased land for which their occurs hot talks, in between the parties, and it happens often. Papers, pertaining to litigation of Revenue court, have been filed on record. For specific offences, a summoning is there, which is based on the enquiry made by the Magistrate, under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. Alleged affidavit of BDC Member and Village Pradhan is of no avail because the same has not been examined by the Magistrate.
Hence, under all above facts and circumstances, this Court, in exercise of inherent power, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not expected to make analytic analysis of factual aspects because the same is a question, to be gone into, 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.
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/