Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1951 (RAJ)

Rekha @ Devpal v. Suhagwanti

2002-12-13

H.R.PANWAR

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - By this criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.10.1996 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, Anupgarh in Criminal Complaint Case No. 923/96 whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence punishable under Section 380, I.RC. against the petitioner. 2. On 4.6.1996, complainant-respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for offence under Section 380, I.RC. on the allegations that the petitioner is here daughter-in-law and her son Pannalal @ Naresh Pal, husband of the petitioner, was a mental patient and as such he was advisee complete bed rest. Her son used to remain under heavy sleep for most of the time. The petitioner was instigated by co-accused who are brothers, sister and mother of the petitioner (not before this Court) that her husband used to remain sick and, therefore, It was useless for her to stay with her In-laws any longer and, therefore, petitioner Rekha @ Devpal left her matrimonial house taking away with her items of jewellery, amount In cash and certain fixed deposit receipts. The complainant was informed about the incident by her son whereupon she along with her son Nareshpal (husband of the petitioner) and two other relative is went to petitioners Dhani where her son Pannalal (Nareshpal) lay on a cot and fell into deep slumber. The accused petitioner exhorted them to be gone and told that they would not let him (Pannalal) go. Thereafter, according to the complainant, the petitioner falsely implicated her son Pannalal (Nareshpal) in criminal case and got him arrested. While In judicial custody, Pannalal expired. On these allegations, the complainant accused the petitioner of having committed offence under Section 380, I.RC. After hearing arguments, the Court below prima facie found the case of the complainant made out only against the petitioner and, accordingly, took cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Section 380, I.RC. However, no prima facie case was found against the non-petitioner No. 2 to 7 named in the complainant. 3. This Court would normally act on the principle that powers under Section 482, Cr.RC. should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when non- interference may result in manifest injustice or when there is evident abuse of the process of court. It is settled law that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr.RC. 3. This Court would normally act on the principle that powers under Section 482, Cr.RC. should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when non- interference may result in manifest injustice or when there is evident abuse of the process of court. It is settled law that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr.RC. is meant of prevent failure of justice or abuse of the process of court. The Courts jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.RC. Is not akin to exercise of revisionary jurisdiction and, therefore, until It Is established on record that manifest injustice would be occasioned in the event of non-interference or that there is apparent abuse of the process of court, this Court would not interfere In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.RC. Thus, exercise of inherent power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. by this Court should be limited to very extreme exceptions being available under the Code of Criminal Procedure to this Court to prevent abuse of the process of court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 4. However, this Court has continuous supervisory jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; and, on examination of record, if the Court is satisfied that there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the court or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice, in that event, it is but the duty of this Court to have it corrected at the inception. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of court the High Court has inherent power to interfere in appropriate cases. Where facts and circumstances of the case so warrant, it is not only desirable but necessary also to give effect to an order under Section 482, Cr.RC. lest judicial process should become an instrument of oppression or harassment in the hands of frustrated or vindictive litigants. 5. This petition was admitted way back in April 1997 and by virtue of an interim order passed by this Court further proceedings before the Court below remained stayed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned dated 9.10.1996 and the relevant material on the record of the learned Court below. 7. 5. This petition was admitted way back in April 1997 and by virtue of an interim order passed by this Court further proceedings before the Court below remained stayed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned dated 9.10.1996 and the relevant material on the record of the learned Court below. 7. From the allegations levelled against the petitioner, it is ex facie admitted fact that the jewellery and gold articles as named in the complaint belonged to the petitioner by way of stridhan. It is further admitted fact that the fixed deposit receipts having allegedly been stolen by the petitioner was in her husbands name. It is on record that her husband faced criminal proceedings initiated at her instance and during the proceedings, in judicial custody, he died. Be that as it may, there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner stood in law divested of her right to succession. Therefore, so far as jewellery and fixed deposit receipts are concerned, the petitioner can by no stretch of imagination be charged for the theft of the same. Besides, there is yet another aspect of the matter. The learned court below did not find any material against the co-accused at the instigation of whom the petitioner allegedly committed the theft. In the circumstances, allowing an entirely unfounded criminal proceedings would definitely amount to abuse of the process of court and will also cause manifest injustice to the petitioner No useful purpose will be served in allowing such proceedings which has no foundation. In this view of the matter, the criminal proceedings launched against the petitioner cannot be sustained. 8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. Order impugned dated 9.10.1996 taking cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Section 380, I.RC. is hereby set aside and consequently, the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in Criminal Complaint Case No. 923/96 in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anupgarh is hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******