Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43221 of 2019 Applicant :- Ram Swaroop And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vishal Agarwal 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 Ram Swaroop and Smt. Pushpa against State of U.P. and Smt. Pushpa Devi with prayer to quash summoning order dated 29.1.2019 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4683 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Sadar Bazar, district Saharanpur, pending in court of C.J.M., Saharanpur.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law against whom a case for maintenance has been filed by O.P. No. 2, Smt. Pushpa Devi, who is widow of son of applicants, with a motive to have ancestral property. This false complaint case, under misuse of process of law, has been filed for an alleged occurrence, which never occurred. The statements recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. were of the persons, who were not witnesses of the alleged occurrence. Previously a case was got registered by Pushpa Gangwar, O.P. No. 2, against Yograj as Case Crime No. 308 of 2015, u/s 452, 354(A) I.P.C. Hence this application with above prayer.
4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the above argument.
5. From the very perusal of complaint filed before the court of C.J.M., Saharanpur, it is apparent that the complainant Smt. Pushpa has said that after death of her husband Anil Kumar in the year 2012 in an accident, accused persons tried their level best for ousting her from their house. She has filed a case for maintenance against her in-laws. Under above animosity they came at 9.00 P.M. on 26.4.2016 and did assault with abuse and threat of dire consequences against complainant. Accused Kamal outraged her modesty too. Magistrate took cognizance over it and under his enquiry got statements recorded u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., wherein statements are fully intact and corroboration with contention of complaint, on the basis of which above summoning order has been passed for above offences against applicants.
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. Apex Court in Monika Kumar Vs. State of U.P., (2008) 8 SCC 781, has categorically said that inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. 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.
11. 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.
12. However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within four weeks 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.
13. For a period of four weeks 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.
14. 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 Pcl