Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 587 (UTT)

Pooja Mathur v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-09-16

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. The parties have been heard on misc. application (CRMA No. 1437 of 2016) which has been moved seeking vacation of the interim order dated 28.05.2015 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, it appears that the marriage of Ms. Geetanjali Singh was solemnized with Mr. Paritosh Mathur on 27.11.2011 in Dehradun. The couple moved to Dubai on 02.07.2012, where she was conceived meanwhile, but on the desire of her husband, she was brought to India in order to abort the conception. 3. The discord somehow aggravated between the couple and the husband, with the support of all the applicants herein, could be able to enhance the sufferings of Ms. Geetanjali. 4. Feeling so suppressed and oppressed, she was constrained to lodge the FIR on 11.03.2013. Before such report could be culminated into the report to the Magistrate, the matter was compromised and by moving a petition in the High Court, a coordinate Bench of this Court quashed the FIR itself on 28.06.2013. Stridhan of Ms. Geetanjali was also returned to her and it was agreed by the husband that he will keep and maintain his wife thenceforth amicably. 5. Unfortunately, the husband could not abide with the settlement and again, the tormented attitude of Mr. Paritosh and the applicants, herein as well, commenced towards her. So, she helplessly moved the application seeking to recall the quashing of the FIR done by this Court earlier. 6. However, such petition was withdrawn with a liberty to file a fresh FIR. Therefore, in this backdrop, the FIR could be lodged on 25.10.2013, raising the detailed allegations against all these applicants as well as the husband. The investigation could result into the submission of the charge-sheet against all of them for the offences of Section 323, 504, 506, 313, 417 IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. 7. The order of cognizance was passed on 01.09.2014 on the face of the charge-sheet itself while on a separate sheet, a typed written order was signed by the Judicial Magistrate Ms. Simranjeet Kaur, wherein the blank columns were filled, stating the offences under Section 323, 504, 506, 313, 417 IPC. 7. The order of cognizance was passed on 01.09.2014 on the face of the charge-sheet itself while on a separate sheet, a typed written order was signed by the Judicial Magistrate Ms. Simranjeet Kaur, wherein the blank columns were filled, stating the offences under Section 323, 504, 506, 313, 417 IPC. The filling up of the blank perhaps has been done by some ministerial staff who obtained the signature of Judicial Magistrate, appending below the order, was the reason to stay the operation of the same by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 28.05.2015. 8. Undoubtedly, the first look appearance renders an impression that Magistrate concerned virtually, was not serious while passing the order of cognizance and it was passed in a routine unconscious manner. 9. Learned counsel for the applicants has now contended that he is not aware as regards the whereabouts of Mr. Paritosh Mathur, so, by making an advertisement, his father has disowned him. 10. In my opinion, it is difficult to believe that the parents, sisters, brothers of Mr. Paritosh Mathur are not aware about the whereabouts of their charming grown up son. Simply, getting an advertisement published in the local newspaper, thereby disowning Mr. Paritosh Mathur, is not enough. The specific allegations have elaborately been made in the FIR and prima facie these applicants and co-accused persons, appear to have complicity in motivating and chalking out the whole plan to segregate Ms. Geetanjali from their family. 11. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC are very wide, but the plentitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Courts must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. 12. The scope of Section 482 CrPC has been clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court time and again. A Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in that regard has elaborately discussed such scope in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Another v. State of Uttaranchal & Others, (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 259 and has held that inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts under Section 482 CrPC though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute. However, the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. The above view has further been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. K.M. Sharan, 2008 (2) CCSC 815. 13. So, I think, this C482 petition, on the grounds which have been pleaded, is not acceptable to this Court but at the same time the order of cognizance of learned Magistrate is also not sound inasmuch as unconsciously passed, in itself. So, I set aside the cognizance order while refuse to quash the charge-sheet. 14. I direct the Magistrate concerned to go through the case diary, apply his/her mind de novo in the matter and after looking to the gravity of the offences, pass a categorical order in accordance with law. 15. This petition stands dismissed accordingly. 16. Interim order, so granted by this Court on 28.5.2015, is vacated.