By means of this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has prayed that the F.I.R. dated 23.12.11 bearing case Crime No. 270/11 P.S. Fatanpur, Pratapgarh, District ? Pratapgarh and chargesheet dated 19.1.2012 be quashed and also order dated 27.1.2012 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh, by which the applicant was summoned, on the chargesheet be quashed.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that his case is covered by the guideline No. 7 laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 SC 604. It is further submitted that the matter regarding the genuineness of the 'will' is still pending before the court of competent Civil and Revenue jurisdiction, the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged after considerable delay of 10 years.
Law is settled on the point that the power u/s 482 Cr.P. C. has to be exercised sparingly. Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent judgment in the case of Sushil Suri v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2011)2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 764 , in paragraph 16 has held as under :-
"16.Section 482 Cr.P.C. itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised by the High Court, namely, (I) to give effect to an order under Cr.P.C;(ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is trite that although the power possessed by the High Court under the said provision is very wide but it is not unbridled. It has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which alone the Court exists. Nevertheless, it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the Court. Yet, in numerous cases, this Court has laid down certain broad principles which may be borne in mind while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Though it is emphasized that exercise of inherent powers would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, but the common thread which runs through all the decisions on the subject is that the Court would be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction where the allegations made in the complaint or charge-sheet, as the case may be, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged."
In the facts of this case there is specific allegation against the applicant that he fabricated a 'will' and after investigation police has filed charge sheet against him. The petitioner submits that he has falsely been implicated in this case because of the malafide of the opposite parties no. 2 to 4.
Perusal of the material available on record, makes out commission of cognizable offence by the applicant.
In view of the aforesaid facts, at this stage, on the basis of document filed it cannot be said that the F.I.R. was lodged due to malafide against the applicant. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he is willing to face the trial and surrender before the Court and necessary direction be given for protection of his liberty.
Keeping in view the aforementioned legal position, the petition lacks merit and it deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Since in this case, F.I.R. was lodged after 10 years and a civil dispute regarding the correctness of the 'will' is also pending before the Court of competent Civil and Revenue jurisdiction. Therefore, it is provided that in case petitioner surrenders before the trial court within a period of 15 days from today then his bail application shall be considered by the Courts below expeditiously, in the light of guidelines provided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh V. State of U.P. 2009(3) ADJ322(SC) and Amrawati & another V. State of U.P. 2004(57)ALR 290, if possible on the same day.
During this period of 15 days the petitioner shall not be arrested.
Order Date :- 23.4.2012 S Kumar