Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46016 of 2019
Applicant :- Virendra Pratap Singh Alias Virendra Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
The applicant Virendra Pratap Singh Alias Virendra Singh, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court with prayer to quash the entire proceeding including summoning order dated 26.10.2017, in complaint case No. 1732 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Akbarpur, District Kanpur Dehat, Mohan Trivedi vs. Santosh Singh and others, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Kanpur Dehat.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that it was a false accusation in misuse of process of law. There was a dispute previously pending regarding land in question, over which construction was being raised and this was protested. With a view to coerce for entering in compromise, this false case was got lodged, wherein, there was inconsistency in the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. Hence, for ensuring end of justice, this application has been filed with above prayer.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the above prayer.
From the very perusal of impugned order, it is apparent that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., was moved and a case crime number was got registered, wherein, final report was filed. Protest petition was filed and it was treated as complaint, wherein, Magistrate took cognizance, examined complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and his two witnesses under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Thereby, impugned summoning order for offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., was passed. There was reiteration in the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. It was in full support of complainant's case. The dispute regarding same property is admitted fact and the occurrence of alleged date, has been said by those witnesses, examined under enquiry made by Magistrate. Hence, at the time of passing of summoning order, under Section 204 of Cr.P.C., Magistrate is not required to enter in meticulous analysis of evidence. Rather, a prima facie case is to be seen by application of judicial mind and it was very well there, in the present case.
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 the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within thirty (30) days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant 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 judgment 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 thirty (30) days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.
However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below, within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application stands disposed of, accordingly.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 Kamarjahan