Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 219 (HP)

RAM LAL v. VIJENDER CHANDEL

2002-08-07

M.R.VERMA

body2002
ORDER This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code) praying for quashing the order dated 11-4-2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Bilaspur and the consequential proceedings in case No. 46-4 of 2000 has been preferred by the accused/petitioner (hereafter referred to as the petitioner). 2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of this petition are that complainant/respondent No. 1 (hereafter referred to as R-1) filed a complaint against the petitioner and accused/pro forma-respondents Nos. 2 to 4 under Sections 303, 342, 355, 166 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that he had filed a complaint under Section 107/150 of the Code against Sukhdev etc. in the Court of S.D.M., Ghu-marwin who forwarded it for inquiry to Police Station, Bilaspur. R-1 accompanied by Gopal Dass and Ram Lal had gone to the Police Station on 11-6-2000 as he was required to attend the Police Station along with his witnesses in support of his said complaint. When R-1 made enquiries about his complaint he was asked to sit outside as the matter would be looked into. At about 6 p.m. R-1 met R-2 with the request to look into his complaint and also met Additional S.H.O. about the complaint who advised him to meet the petitioner and sit in his room. After R-1 has complied with, he was informed by the petitioner that he had taken back his complaint which fact was denied by R-1. On search the complaint was found in the file being maintained by the petitioner. It infuriated the petitioner and started abusing R-1 in filthy language and also started beating him with fist and kick blows and proclaimed that R-1 has terrorized the Ilaqua. In the meanwhile, Additional S.H.O. and S.H.O. came in the room and on their enquiry as to what had happened the petitioner said "prepare a false case against him and put him behind the bars" and that the petitioner would not spare R-1 at any cost. Thereafter, R-1 was confined in a room and declaring that he would put all the persons behind the bars, the petitioner opened the locks of Hawalat room which he did at the instance of R-4 with whom he had connived and conspired against the complainant. Thereafter, R-1 was confined in a room and declaring that he would put all the persons behind the bars, the petitioner opened the locks of Hawalat room which he did at the instance of R-4 with whom he had connived and conspired against the complainant. R-1 was allowed to leave after executing bail bonds where after he along with Gopal Dass, Ram Lal, Amar Nath and Kashmir Singh went to SPs residence and informed him about what had happened at the Police Station. The S. P. directed R-1 and his companions to go to the Police Station and assured that Additional S. P. would go to the Police Station and enquire into the matter. R-1 and his companions went to the Police Station where they were again abused and humiliated by using filthy language and were finally pushed off the place. On the next day the complainant lodged a written complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur. However, nothing happened in the matter, R-1, therefore, lodged the complaint in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur. After recording the preliminary evidence, the trial Magistrate on the basis of the material before him found sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner and R-2 to 4 under Sections 323, 342, 355, 166 and 120-B, I.P.C. Except R-4 presence of others was secured and finally the name of R-4 as accused in the complaint had to be struck off as his correct address was not forthcoming. After hearing the parties, accusations were put to the petitioner and R-2 and R-3 on 11-4-2002 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Being aggrieved by the order regarding putting of accusations, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and have also gone through the records. 4. Being aggrieved by the order regarding putting of accusations, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and have also gone through the records. 4. It may be pointed out at the very outset that regarding ambit and scope of Section 482 of the Code the settled position in law is that in case the High Court on examination of the record finds that there has been 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 or the order passed by the Subordinate Court requires correction, it is but the duty of the High Court to have it corrected to meet the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of the Court. However, such powers are to be sparingly used in rare cases. 5. In Major Vijay Singh Mankotia v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2002 (2) Srinagar LJ 1018 : (2002 Cri LJ 3165), this Court while dealing with the ambit and scope of Section 482 of the Code held as under : "8. It may be pointed out at the very outset that it is by now well settled that powers of superintendence and inherent powers of the High Court may be exercised sparingly so asto avoid needless multiplicity of procedure, unnecessary delay in trial, protraction of proceedings and gross injustice, more so, in a case where the prosecution has already been launched. The High Court in exercise of such powers is not to embark upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations against the accused. However, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. . . . . . ." 6. It is in view of the above settled position in law that the present petition has to be considered and decided. 7. . . . . . ." 6. It is in view of the above settled position in law that the present petition has to be considered and decided. 7. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a sincere and honest Government servant whereas R-1 is a habitual criminal and there are so many F.I.Rs./complaints pending against him and he has been convicted in a case by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur. It was further urged that the complaint lodged by R-1 is without any substance and is intended merely to harass the petitioner. Therefore, to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and uncalled for prosecution of the petitioner the impugned order and the consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for R-1 has contended that the preliminary evidence, as recorded by the trial Magistrate, fully justifies the giving of notice of accusation to the petitioner and other accused persons and presently there is nothing on the record to justify the contention that the prosecution of the petitioner is uncalled for and unwarranted. 9. A perusal of the preliminary evidence consisting of the statements of complainant (P.W. 1), Gopal Dass (P.W. 2) and Amar Nath (P.W. 3) prima facie reveals that there are grounds to proceed against the petitioner. There is nothing on the record in the form of any representation/application/document having been filed by the petitioner on the basis of which at this stage it may be said that the statements of the aforesaid witnesses are not true. This Court is not expected to embark upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations against the petitioner in these proceedings as the allegations against the petitioner and other accused are not absurd and inherently improbable justifying a conclusion that there are no grounds to proceed against them. May be that some cases are pending against R-1 or he might have been convicted in a case, however, in the absence of material and proof it cannot be said that the version of the complainant is totally false and by lodging the complaint he is misusing the process of the Court. May be that some cases are pending against R-1 or he might have been convicted in a case, however, in the absence of material and proof it cannot be said that the version of the complainant is totally false and by lodging the complaint he is misusing the process of the Court. Even the worst in the society may have the rightiest cause in a given case and such person cannot be debarred from seeking justice on merits at the threshold particularly when his cause is supported by independent witnesses not shown to be interested in the cause of R-1. 10. In view of the above discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner has no case which may warrant interference by this Court with the impugned order and the consequential proceedings in exercise of inherent powers at this stage. 11. As a result, this petition merits dimissal and is accordingly dismissed. 12. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 9-9-2002. Petition dismissed.