Court No. - 42
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7317 of 2019
Applicant :- Sompal And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kumar Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Sompal, Mohan Swaroop, Deen Dayal, Suraj and Dataram against State of U.P. and one other with request for quashing the Complaint Case No. 1046 of 2016 (Nanhe Lal vs. Sompal and others), under Sections 323, 452 I.P.C., Police Station Deoraniya, District Bareilly and entire proceeding therein, pending before Judicial Magistrate, Baheri, District Bareilly.
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that a report of N.C.R. No. 74 of 2016 was got registered at police station Deoraniya against Nanhe Lal, Chhote Lal and Om Prakash for offence punishable under Sections 323 and 506 I.P.C. for occurrence of 4.5.2016, in which investigation order was passed and after investigation charge-sheet was filed against Nanhe Lal, Chhote Lal and Om Prakash for offence punishable under Section 324, 323 and 504 I.P.C. on 15.6.2016 and this complaint was filed by complainant on 20.6.2016 as a counter blast, in which there was no injury to complainant or any of his family members. This was a false case in which summoning order has been passed, hence, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
From the very perusal of N.C.R. and charge-sheet filed in Case Crime No. 181 of 2016 under Sections 324, 323, 326 I.P.C., P.S. Deoraniya, it is apparent that above occurrence was of 4.5.2016 having no concern with present occurrence of 2.5.2016. Present complaint by way of application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was for occurrence of 2.5.2016 and Magistrate has registered it as complaint case by taking cognizance himself. Complainant and his two witnesses were examined under Section 200 ad 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, summoning order was passed for offence punishable under Section 325, 452 I.P.C. This order is based on the evidence recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. whereas a previous trial in between parties, are pending of an occurrence of 5 years back. Meaning thereby there had been litigation between both sides and repeated occurrence is being taken place either as attack or as defence but his factual aspect is not to be analyzed in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. rather it is a course of trial, hence, under settled principle of law as propounded by this court as well as Apex Court read as under:
"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".
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".
Meaning thereby, exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded as above. This Court is not of opinion to indulge in the matter.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 6 weeks and no more 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 Supreme Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. Till then no coercive action shall be taken against applicants.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally
disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 Kamarjahan