Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 14 (UTT)

RAM CHANDRA v. LAL SINGH

2015-01-07

U.C.DHYANI

body2015
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) The applicants, by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash the summoning order dated 30.03.2010 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 161 of 2010, captioned as Lal Singh vs. Ram Chandra Kalyani and others, under Sections 323, 324, 452, 506 and 34 of IPC, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar. 2. Initially an FIR was lodged by the respondent against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC against the applicants. After the investigation of the case, Final Report was submitted by the Investigating Officer on 23.09.2008. On protest petition being filed by the respondent, the court directed for further investigation, which again culminated in submission of Final Report. The Final Report was treated as criminal complaint case and the cognizance was taken under Section 190 (1)(a) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed. 3. Applicants no. 1’s daughter has been marred to the son of the respondent. Applicants no. 2 & 3 are the sons of the applicant no.1. A first information report under Section 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC was lodged by the wife of applicant no. 1 against the respondent and others. 4. In retaliation thereof, following criminal cases were filed by or on behalf of the respondent against the applicants: (i) C-482Petition No. 481 of 2010, Complaint case no. 161 of 2010, under Sections 323, 324, 452, 506/34 of IPC, pending before Judicial Magistrate, Laksar. (ii) C-482 Petition No. 678 of 2008, Complaint Case No. 624 of 2008, under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Laksar. (iii) C-482 Petition No. 337 of 2013, Complaint Case No. 6581 of 2012, under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506, pending before A.C.J.M. Laksar. (iv) Complaint Case No. 774 of 2008, under Sections 304, 323, 147, 504 and 506 of IPC. 5. In one such criminal case, when present applicants came up before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the criminal proceedings initiated against them were quashed and consequently, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed on their behalf was allowed. In criminal misc. application no. 678 of 2008, captioned as Ram Chandra and others vs. Lal Singh. 5. In one such criminal case, when present applicants came up before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the criminal proceedings initiated against them were quashed and consequently, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed on their behalf was allowed. In criminal misc. application no. 678 of 2008, captioned as Ram Chandra and others vs. Lal Singh. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 12.03.2013, imposed a cost of Rs. 5000/- on the respondent. The respondent approached Hon’ble Apex Court by way of filing Special Leave Petition. SLP (Criminal) No. 5532 of 2013, captioned as Lal Singh vs. Ram Chandra and others was dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court, vide judgment and order dated 31.01.2014. 6. Enmity is a double edged weapon. It cuts both ways. If, on the one hand, damage may be caused to person or property of one person by the other side, it is also possible that the one side may falsely implicate the other side on flimsy grounds. Normally, the law of the land, as is prevailing today, says that the Court, in exercise of it’s jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., need not inter into the factual aspects of the case after the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are satisfied, but where the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Court or that interest of justice favours otherwise, it may quash the criminal proceedings. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist, as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another, (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 986. 7. Instant case appears to be one such case in which such inherent jurisdiction should be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, which jurisdiction, although should be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself, but the instant case is one such case in which exercise of such inherent powers is called for in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The applicants, in the instant case, are able to pass those tests. This fact alone has prompted this Court to quash the criminal proceedings initiated by respondent against the applicants in the interest of justice. 8. The applicants, in the instant case, are able to pass those tests. This fact alone has prompted this Court to quash the criminal proceedings initiated by respondent against the applicants in the interest of justice. It is not open for any party to file repeated criminal cases to wreck vengeance against others. Interference is thus called for, and is warranted in the interest of justice. 9. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is therefore allowed. As a consequent thereof, the summoning order dated 30.03.2010 as well as the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 161 of 2010, captioned as Lal Singh vs. Ram Chandra Kalyani and others, under Sections 323, 324, 452, 506 and 34 of IPC, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar, are hereby quashed.