Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42182 of 2019 Applicant :- Veer Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Sinha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
This Application, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Applicant, Veer Singh, against State of U.P. and Rishipal, with a prayer for setting aside summoning order, dated 6.11.2018, and, thereby, entire criminal proceeding, in Complaint Case No. 3242 of 2018, under Sections 498 and 384 of IPC, Police Station- Kunderki, District- Moradabad.
Learned counsel for applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent, but he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number. Victim, herself, had given an affidavit, mentioning therein that she was not married with Rishi Pal, rather, she was kept by Rishi Pal, under duress and from him, there is a daughter. Neither she was enticed nor was taken by Veer Singh, rather, she was residing with him voluntarily at his residence, but, this false accusation, which was a malicious prosecution. Hence, for avoiding abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice, this Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed, with above prayer.
Learned AGA, representing State of U.P., has vehemently opposed this Application.
From very perusal of Application, moved, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., it is apparent that the informant-complainant, Rishi Pal, had made a prayer from the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mordabad, for issuing a direction for registration of a case and its investigation. In investigation, it has come that complainant's wife was taken by Veer Singh, applicant, herein, and a demand of money, under threat, was being extended by Veer Singh. This occurrence took place on 12.3.2018, at 12.30 PM, when Soni, alongwith cash of Rs.39,000/- and ornaments, was taken away by Veer Singh, leaving behind her son Sushant and daughter Ansi, at home of informant, who, lateron, narrated this occurrence. This Application was treated as a complaint by the Magistrate and the Magistrate, in its enquiry, recorded, statement of the complainant, under Section 200, and his two witnesses, under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Thereupon, impugned summoning, for offence, punishable, under Sections 498 and 384 of IPC, was made.
Though, affidavit, being said to have been filed by Smt. Soni, is not an evidence, and it is not to be taken into consideration at this juncture, but, if for the sake of argument if it is being admitted, even then, it is apparent that Soni has entered into a mutal divorce with her husband, Vikas, and she was residing with Rishipal, where, she gave birth of one daughter, Ansi, thenafter, she went with Veer Singh and a Karab (second marriage) was performed in between them. But it was under duress and with no free will. Now a question of Karab (second marriage), under duress or with no free-will is a question of fact, to be seen, during trial, by the Trial court, but, statement, recorded by the Magistrate, in its enquiry, was sufficiently concluding existence of prima facie case for offences, punishable, under Sections 498 and 384 of IPC for which Magistrate has passed impugned summoning order.
Hence, under all above facts and circumstances, this Court, in exercise of inherent power, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not expected to make meticulous analysis of factual aspects because the same is a question, to be gone into, during course of trial, by the Trial court.
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 judgment, in the case of 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 yet another judgment, in the case of 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 the case of 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 the case of 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 the case of 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.
In view of what has been discussed above, this Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., merits dismissed and it stands dismissed accordingly.
However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, 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 Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.
In case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 bgs/