Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 622 (UTT)

Ravi Panwar v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-09-22

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Government Advocate, it transpires that in the year 2013-14, applicant was pursuing his B.B.A. course (Second Semester) in Dehradun. 2. It is difficult for this Court to accept the contention that within the age group of 17-19 years, the applicant, deviating his interest from studies, got prepared his Permanent Account Number (PAN), which was one of the substantial documents for sanctioning the loan. It is also quite unbelievable that one Mr. Vijay Agarwal manipulated all these documents for the applicant Ravi Panwar, while the latter is not even related to Mr. Agarwal. In addition thereto, prima facie, the prosecution facts reveal that he could be successful in getting more than rupees nine lakh sanctioned for purchase of a car, which, as a measure of precaution, was transferred by the bank through RTGS facility directly in the bank account of concerned vendor. The vehicle was purchased and the applicant also got relevant papers issued from the government transport office with the endorsement of hypothecation of such car with Nainital Bank. 3. The Hon’ble Apex Court has time and again held that the powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. should sparingly be exercised by the High Court in order to check the gross abuse of the process of law. Although, such powers are very wide, but its plentitude 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. 4. In the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Another v. State of Uttaranchal & Others, (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 259A the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in that regard, has elaborately discussed such scope 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. (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 5. It has further been held that every High Court has the 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. (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court. (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 5. It has further been held that every High Court has the 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. 6. The above view has further been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. K.M. Sharan, 2008 (2) CCSC 815. 7. So, in view of the afore-quoted authorities of the Hon’ble Apex Court, I am of the opinion that it is not such a case divulging any abuse much less gross of the process of law. Looking to the facts of the case, the version of the applicant appears to be wholly unsustainable. That apart, the applicant, during the course of trial, may get his case proved when an opportunity is rendered by the Trial Judge to him for producing his evidence (if any). 8. All told, this petition is bereft of any merit and it is dismissed at the threshold itself.