Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 157 (JK)

Harbans Kour & Ors. v. Surjeet Singh & Anr.

2012-04-11

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2012
(CrMP No. 46 OF 2011) Petitioners herein have sought quashment of proceedings drawn in a complaint pending before Sub-Judge (Judicial Magistrate) 1st Class, Jammu under sections 452 & 323 RPC, titled as Surjeet Singh & another vs Inderjeet Singh & others, on the grounds taken in the petition. It appears that a complaint came to be filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, was transferred to Sub Judge (Judicial Magistrate) 1st Class, Jammu. Preliminary statements of complainants as well as witnesses were recorded and cognizance and process was drawn vide order dated 12.10.2010 for the commission of offences under section 452 and 323 RPC and is pending on the dockets of said court. After lapse of more than 1= years, petitioners herein have sought quashment of complaint and the proceedings drawn on the ground that the grievance projected in the complaint is of civil nature. It is apt to reproduce Section 561-A Cr.P.C herein:- 561-A. Saving of inherent power of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This remedy can be invoked/pressed into service or may be exercised in the following circumstances:- i) To pass orders in order to give effect to an order passed under Cr.P.C; ii) to prevent abuse of process of Court; iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice; and iv) to prevent mis-carriage of justice. This remedy can be invoked/pressed into service or may be exercised in the following circumstances:- i) To pass orders in order to give effect to an order passed under Cr.P.C; ii) to prevent abuse of process of Court; iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice; and iv) to prevent mis-carriage of justice. Keeping in view the allegations contained in the complaint, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the case of petitioner falls within the ambit/contours of Section 561-A Cr.P.C. Apex Court in the cases reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 ; AIR 1964 SC 01; AIR 1972 SC 484 ; AIR 1974 SC 1146 ; AIR 1977 SC 1489 ; AIR 1977 SC 2229 ; AIR 1980 SC 326 ; AIR 1989 SC 01; AIR 1990 SC 494 ; AIR 1991 SC 1260 ; AIR 1992 SC 604 ; AIR 1992 SC 892; AIR 1996 SC 309 ; AIR 1996 SC 2983 ; AIR 1999 SC 3596 ; AIR 1999 SC 1044 ; AIR 1999 SC 1216 ; AIR 2002 SC 671 ; AIR 2004 SC 3967 ; AIR 2005 SC 3212 ;SLJ 2005 VOL-I 118; 2008 AIR SCW 1003; 2008 AIR SCW 1993; 2008 AIR SCW 1998; 2008 AIR SCW 4614; 2008 AIR SCW 7680; 2008 AIR SCW 2778; AIR 2010 SC 201 has discussed the scope of Section 561-A Cr.P.C corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C of Central Code and has laid down the tests. Apex Court also held that power is to be exercised cautiously, carefully and sparingly and Court has not to function as a Court of appeal or revision. It has also laid down the parameters and guidelines in cases titled as K.L.E Society & Ors. Vs. Siddalingesh reported in 2008 AIR SCW 1993; A.P Vs. Bajjoori Kanthaiah reported as 2008 AIR SCW 7860 and Reshma Bano Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2008 AIR SCW 1998. I have examined the complaint and the statements recorded. It appears that the cognizance drawn and the process issued cannot be said to be abuse of process of law. In the given circumstances, no case is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed along with all CrMPs.