Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44397 of 2019 Applicant :- Ram Kishore And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Sharma,Kapil 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, Ram Kishore, Anil, Anuj Kumar and Abhishek, with a prayer for quashing of entire criminal proceeding of complaint case no.6254 of 2019, Ram Shankar Vs. Ram Kishore and others, Police Station-Vaidpura, District Etawah, under Section 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, pursuant to order, dated 27.6.2019, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Etawah, Learned counsel for applicants argued that there is a previous case pending in between the parties, wherein, applicant no.3, is the complainant and it was got registered against the complainant's side for offenes, punishable, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 326, 336, 504, 506 of IPC, read with Sectiion 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, as Case Crime No. 26 of 2016, Police Station, Vaidpura, District Etawah and as a counter-blast to that case, this complaint has been got lodged, wherein, there is no medical report nor any occurrence, as alleged, occurred. Hence, for avoiding abuse of process of law, 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.
From very perusal of the complaint and the statement, recorded, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, of complainant, it is apparent that both are intact with accusation that on 28.10.2017, at about 4.00 PM, while complainant was at field, an altercation took place between complainant and Ram Kishore, Anil, Anuj Kumar and Abhishek, applicants herein, and, thereafter, at about 6.00 PM, on the same day, those accused persons came to the house of the complainant, where, they abused him with filthy language and on being protested, they assaulted him. Ram Kishore, applicant no.1, herein, was having a Tamancha (country made pistol) with him and he fired in the air. He himself fallen down. Hearing noise of gun shot fire, Surendra Singh and Dharamdas reached there. Seeing them, accused persons fled away, while extending threat of life. Same contention of two witnesses, namely, Surendra Singh and Dharamdas was in corroboration was there. Hence, impugned summoning order, for offences, punishable, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC has been passed, by the Magistrate on finding existence of a prima facie case from perusal of evidences, collected by him, in the enquiry made. Previous litigation may be a motive for this implication or may be a motive for this occurrence, but it is a matter of fact to be seen by the Trial court, during trial.
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 embark upon factual matrix 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 dismissal and it stands dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019/bgs/