Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42482 of 2019
Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sushant Misra
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
The applicants namely, Vinod Kumar Singh and Shish Ram, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court with prayer for quashing of order dated 09.05.2019 as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 710 of 2019 (Vimal Vs. Vinod Kumar Singh and another), under Sections 354, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station Rajeypur, District Farrukhabad, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad. 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 this is a counter blast malicious prosecution under abuse of process of law. Complaint was filed by Sunita against Vimal, Ram Kumar and Smt. Shanti Devi, by way of an application moved under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for offence punishable against them and when police went for investigation or inquiry in it, after 19.10.2018, complaint with false accusation was got lodged. There is no independent eye-witness of the occurrence and it was a false accusation. Hence, this application with above prayer.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA has vehemently opposed the above prayer with this contention that statement recorded under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. are fully intact and it is admitted that previous litigation in between is there. The registration of previous application was not hidden by complainant.
From very perusal of application moved under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., it is apparent that it was filed by Vimal with specific accusation that there is previous litigation in between the parties wherein Vinod Kumar and Shish Ram were on bail. Case was pending at the stage of evidence. On 8.2.2016 at about 12:00 P.M., complainant along with her wife, was on his way by his motorcycle, both of named accused persons met and they intercepted, wherein, they abused them and extended threat of dire consequences. It was protested then modesty was outraged by them and many persons rushed on spot. Magistrate took cognizance over it and got this registered as complaint case. Inquiry made by Magistrate. Statement of complainant under Section 200 and his two witnesses under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., was got recorded. Then after, this summoning for offences punishable under Sections 354, 504 and 506 IPC was made. The previous registration of case, is a question of fact. It may be either motive of this subsequent offence or defence of subsequent offence but it is to be seen by Magistrate during trial and this Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not expected to make analytical analysis of evidence and fact of the case, as the same is the question before 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 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.
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 30 days 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 measure shall be taken against the applicants.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 Kamarjahan