Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42552 of 2019
Applicant :- Subhash And 2 Ors
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Babu Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
The applicants namely, Subhash, Babloo and Smt. Mahesho, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court with prayer for quashing of summoning order dated 04.06.2019 as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 816/9 of 2018 (Smt. Sharda Vs. Jagroshan and Others), under Sections 427, 506 of IPC, Police Station Ratanpuri, District Muzaffar Nagar, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Muzaffar Nagar. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that it was a malicious prosecution under misuse of process of court. No such occurrence ever took place. There was dispute of civil nature and the alleged occurrence of 22.1.2018, was of altercation in between but this false accusation was got lodged. Hence, this proceeding with above prayer.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the above prayer.
From the very perusal of complaint, it is apparent that it was by way of an application moved under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. against Jagroshan, Subhash, Babloo and Smt. Mahesho by Smt. Sharda, with specific accusation that some property was purchased on 25.5.2012. There occurred some dispute regarding it and owing to this, these accused persons broken the lock of premises of complainant and they damaged property by mischief and while intercepted, they extended threat of dire consequences. Upon rescue call, many persons including Shareef, Dharampal and Aflatoon rushed there. Magistrate treated this application as complaint and took cognizance of alleged offence wherein a statement of complainant and her two witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. There upon summoning order was passed for offences punishable under Sections 427 and 506 IPC. It was well there in the evidence collected by Magistrate in its own inquiry.
This Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.c. is not expected to make analytical analysis of evidence because the same is a course of trial before trial court. As per law of 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. The impugned order was well based on evidence and facts collected by Magistrate in its enquiry. Hence, this proceeding merits its dismissal.
Dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 Kamarjahan