Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1908 (ALL)

Saroj Pathak v. State of U. P.

2019-08-07

RAJENDRA KUMAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : RAJENDRA KUMAR, J. 1. By means of application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicant Smt. Saroj Pathak approached this Court for quashing the summoning order dated 04.09.2012 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur in criminal Case No.551 of 2012 (Rajmati versus Saroj Pathak and another), under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 IPC pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur and entire proceedings thereof. 2. Brief facts given rise to the present application are that complainant Smt. Rajmati Singh moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate stating that her grand daughter Jhanvi (here daughter's, daughter) was a student of Class 1st, she had gone to School with her friend Reshma Bano on 09.01.2012 at about 11:30 AM. Class teacher demanded fee receipt from her grand daughter. When she told that the same was kept by her Nani somewhere, thereafter class teacher Rekha Singh called the Principal Smt. Saroj Pathak (applicant). Rekha Singh became angry by that time Principal Smt. Saroj Pathak came there and provoked to her to beat whereupon Rekha Singh inflicted injury in the left eye of Jhanvi with pen due to which she lost her sight. Principal abused and asked her (Jhanvi) to leave the School. 3. Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. came to be registered as complainant case, thereafter learned Magistrate recorded the statements of complainant-Smt. Rajmanti Singh under Section 200 Cr.P.C., victim Jhanvi aged four years under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and Reshma Bano aged about five years under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Considering the statements of witnesses and medical report of Jhanvi, Court found prima-facie case and sufficient ground for proceeding, summoned the accused-applicant Smt. Saroj Pathak and one Rekha Singh to face trial under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 IPC. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the summoning order, accused-applicant filed present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the summoning order as well as complaint. 5. I have heard Sri Maneesh Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for applicant, Sri Jai Prakash Singh Vats, learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri S.P. Singh, learned AGA for State. 6. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for applicant that applicant is a lady and Principal of the Institution concerned, she has been falsely implicated on the false allegation for harassment and humiliation. No case is made out against her. 6. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for applicant that applicant is a lady and Principal of the Institution concerned, she has been falsely implicated on the false allegation for harassment and humiliation. No case is made out against her. It has been further submitted that on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by complainant, Magistrate did not find cognizable offence under Section 324 IPC, therefore, matter was directed to be registered as the complaint case. It has been further submitted that it was not a business of applicant to see the fee receipt deposited by any student, entire allegation made in complaint is false and fake and there are contradictions in the statements of witnesses, no independent witness has been produced and prayed to quash the entire complaint and proceeding thereof. 7. Learned AGA opposed the submission of learned Counsel for applicant and submitted that victim as well as one student of the same Institution has supported the case. It has come in statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. that injured Jhanvi aged about 4 years has lost her sight. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the records. 9. Before enter into the facts of the present case it is necessary to consider the ambit and scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. vested in the High Court. Section 482 Cr.P.C. saves 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. 10. It is settled that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in a routine manner, but it is for limited purposes, namely, to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. 11. Time and again, Apex Court and various High Courts, have reminded when exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be justified, which cannot be placed in straight jacket formula, but one thing is very clear that it should not preampt a trial and cannot be used in a routine manner so as to cut short the entire process of trial before the Courts below. If from a bare perusal of first information report or complaint, it is evident that it does not disclose any offence at all or it is frivolous, collusive or oppressive from the face of it, the Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but it should be exercised sparingly. This will not include as to whether prosecution is likely to establish its case or not, whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, accusation would not be sustained, or the other circumstances, which would not justify exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I need not go into various aspects in detail but it would be suffice to refer a few recent authorities dealing all these matters in detail, namely, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp1 SCC 335, Popular Muthiah Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, 2006 7 SCC 296 , Hamida vs. Rashid @ Rasheed and Ors., 2008 1 SCC 474 , Dr. Monica Kumar and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Ors., 2008 8 SCC 781 , M.N. Ojha and Ors. Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav and Anr., 2009 9 SCC 682 , State of A.P. vs. Gourishetty Mahesh and Ors., 2010 6 JT 588 SC and Iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola Incorporated and Ors., 2011 1 SCC 74 . 12. Court time and again has examined scope of jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and laid down several principles which govern the exercise of jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. A three-Judge Bench in the case of State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and others, 1977 2 SCC 699 , Court held that the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. 13. 13. In State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp1 SCC 335, Court has elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. Although in the above case Court was considering the power of the High Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR, the case arose out of an FIR registered under Section 161, 165 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Court elaborately considered the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C./ Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the context of quashing the proceedings in criminal investigation. After noticing various earlier pronouncements of Court, Court enumerated certain Categories of cases by way of illustration where power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or secure ends of justice. Paragraph 102 which enumerates 7 categories of cases where power can be exercised under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are extracted as follows: "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 14. In Priya Vrat Singh and others vs. Shyam Ji Sahai, 2008 8 SCC 232 , Court observed that the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima-facie decision in a case where the entire 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 magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. 15. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. 15. Present case does not appear to be covered in any category given in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others (supra). 16. From perusal of allegations made in complaint, statement of witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., medical evidence of victim Jhanvi, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the accused-applicant. 17. All the submissions made at bar raised to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 18. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly dismissed.