Court No. - 48
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6344 of 2018 Applicant :- Rambabu Purwar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
The tenor of the ludicrous prayer sought in this application appears for quashing of the order dated 8.2.2018 passed by the court of Metropolitan Magistrate-II, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 974 of 2014, ( Rupali Purwar versus Rambabu Purwar and others) under Sections 498A 323 and 504 IPC, Police Station Badshahinaka, District Kanpur Nagar, whereby the court below has fixed the next date in the case for recording of evidence under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. The applicants have also sought a direction for the concerned court below to the effect that the court below should proceed for hearing on the charges to be framed in the case, instead of proceeding to record evidence under Section 244 of Cr.P.C.
Heard Smt. Vishnukanti, in person on behalf of the applicants, who herself is the applicant no.2 in this Criminal Misc. Application and Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned AGA for the State of U.P. Perused the record.
The submission made by Smt. Vishnukanti, in person on behalf of the applicants is that on earlier occasion, this Court passed order dated 5.5.2015 in Criminal Misc. Application (U/S 482 ) No. 9201 of 2015, wherein it was directed that in case the applicants move appropriate application at the stage of charge before the court concerned within two months from the date of the order, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with the provisions of law after giving due opportunity of hearing to either of the parties within a further period of 3 months from the date of the application, if any, preferred by the applicants for that purpose. Further submission is that the accused-applicants, in pursuance to the said order dated 5.5.2015, moved an application dated 30.6.2015 before the concerned court below under Sections 211 and 212 of Cr.P.C., which was rejected by the concerned court below vide order dated 3.12.2015 and the next date was fixed as 6.1.2016 for appearance of the accused persons for charge. Submission is that once the concerned court below passed the said order dated 3.12.2015, it is not open for the court concerned to divert from such earlier order and to proceed to record evidence under Section 244 of Cr.P.C., instead of proceeding to hear the matter for charge and, hence, the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed by this Court with a direction to the court below to proceed in the case in respect of hearing for the purpose of framing of charge.
On the other hand, Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned AGA has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the applicants and has contended that the Criminal Misc. Application is misconceived and the applicants are habitual of filing successive petitions before the High Court and in respect of one of such petitions, the applicants had approached the Hon'ble Apex Court also but unsuccessfully. Submission is that there are as many as six petitions, which have been filed by the applicants before the High Court prior to the filing of the present Criminal Misc. Application, the details of which have been elaborately recorded in the earlier order dated 24.1.2017 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1 of 2016. Submission is that even if the court below had passed the order dated 3.12.2015 for appearance of the accused in relation to framing of charge, there is no illegality in case the court below proceeds to record evidence under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. on the next date fixed, instead of proceeding to hear the matter for framing of charge for the reason that framing of charge under Section 246 of Cr.P.C. can not be done without recording such evidence under Section 244 of Cr.P.C., as may be produced in support of the prosecution. Learned AGA further submits that the conduct of the applicants is not bonafide and they can not be permitted to misuse the process of law on whims and fancies by filing repeated petitions before the superior Courts on every trivial issue.
Perusal of the record in the light of rival contentions reveals that the applicants have again and again invoked different jurisdictions of this Court by filing different applications under Section 482, under Section 407, under Section 397 and under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. by showing grievance against the different orders of the concerned court below. In one earlier order dated 24.1.2017 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1 of 2016 (Ram Babu Purwar and two others Versus State of U.P. and another), it has been recorded by another Bench of this Court that the applicants have also travelled up to the Hon'ble Apex Court against the order passed in earlier Criminal Misc. Application (U/S 482) No. 27848 of 2011, whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court had refused to interfere with the order of this Court and had directed the applicants to surrender before the concerned court below. The details of successive petitions filed by the applicants also find place in the said order dated 24.1.2017 and may be mentioned as follows:
1. Criminal Misc. Application (U/S 482) No 27848 of 2011
2. Criminal Misc. Application (U/S 482) No 23792 of 2011
3. Criminal Misc. Application (U/S 482) No 2136 of 2015
4. Criminal Misc. Application (U/S 482) No 9201 of 2015
5. Criminal Misc. Application (U/S 482) No 32425 of 2015
6. Criminal Revision No. 1 of 2016 It may be noted that the applicants did not get success in any of the above-mentioned petitions and were required to surrender before the concerned court below but they chose not to surrender but to file successive petitions before this Court. No doubt, filing of any petitions against any orders of the court below is a matter of choice of any litigants but at the same time, such choice cannot be exercised in a whimsical manner without making any assessment about the requirement or need of filing such petitions and without giving a thought about the justification of such challenge against the orders passed by the court below. If the judicial forum of the court is permitted to be exploited without any reasonable restrictions, the proceedings before the court below can never be concluded with dispatch and such unscrupulous litigants will certainly find and reinvent occasions to stall the proceedings before the court below. In the present case, the series of petitions filed by the applicants is a glaring example of unbecoming conduct of the accused- applicants who, instead of participating in the proceedings before the court below in the case at hand and get the same concluded expeditiously, are again and again trying to stall the proceedings any how, despite having failed every time.
Even in this Criminal Misc. Application, the grievance of the applicants appears to be specious and misconceived as the concerned court below has rightly proceeded to fix the next date in the case for recording of prosecution evidence under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. as the same is prerequisite to decide as to whether a case for framing of charge against the accused is made out by the prosecution or to consider that no case against the accused has been made out, which if unrebutted would warrant his conviction. In the present case, even if the concerned court below had passed the order on the earlier date i.e. 3.12.2015 for appearance of the accused for charge, the correct course adopted by the court below on the subsequent date was absolutely justified, when it proceeded to record the prosecution evidence under Section 244 of Cr.P.C.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, there is no illegality, infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order dated 8.2.2018, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The application is thoroughly misconceived. Considering the background of this Criminal Misc. Application, the applicants shall be better advised not to indulge into such type of uncalled for repeated litigations merely for the sake of challenging every order passed by the court below, and the applicants are directed to participate in the proceedings of case in hand in bonafide manner so that the concerned court below may proceed to conclude the same with alacrity and dispatch.
The application is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.2.2018 CPP/-