Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2148 (ALL)

Kanta Devi v. State of U. P.

2019-09-17

RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ram Krishna Gautam, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants over this Application, moved under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (In short 'Cr.P.C.), by Smt. Kanta Devi and Dinesh Baghel, against State of U.P. and Mitthan Khan, challenging summoning order, dated 13.3.2019, passed in Complaint Case No. 6901940 of 2018 (Mitthan Khan vs. Zannat & others), under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (In short 'IPC'), Police Station-Shahganj, District Agra, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court no.4, Agra as well as impugned summoning order, dated 13.3.2019 and other process issued against them. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that both the applicants are having no concern nor there was any evidence for their summoning for offence, punishable, under Section 420 of IPC, whereas vide impugned order, dated 13.3.2019, they have been summoned, but no summoning is there for those other accused persons, who were also made party in complaint, filed by the complainant, Opposite party no.2. Hence, this was abuse of process of court and as such this Application, with a prayer for quashing of impugned summoning order and entire proceeding of above case. 3. Learned AGA, representing State of U.P., has vehemently opposed this Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 4. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through the summoning order as well as the complaint, filed before the Magistrate, it is apparent that the complaint was filed by Mitthan Khan against Zannat and five others for offence, punishable, under Sections 147, 148, 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506 and 120B of IPC, Police Station-Shahganj, District Agra, by way of an application, moved, under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., which was treated to be a complaint, wherein contention was that Mitthan Khan entered in an agreement for purchase of a plot of 40 sq. yard of Khasra No. 59, Mauja Dauretha, Tehsil & District Agra, through a dealer, Mukesh Kumar with Dinesh Baghal, applicant no.2 herein, and in lieu of above, amount of Rs.75,000/- and Rs.30,000/- were paid to Dinesh Baghel and his wife, Kanta Devi, applicant no.1 herein. Subsequently, Rs.1,45,000/- was also paid in cash to them, but they did not execute sale deed, rather disclosed the property to be owned by Zannat. Subsequently, Rs.1,45,000/- was also paid in cash to them, but they did not execute sale deed, rather disclosed the property to be owned by Zannat. Ultimately, by making additional payment, through Bank Cheque, above property was got purchased, by way of registered sale deed from Zannat on 23.6.2017. Lateron, it was came to notice that Kanta Devi had executed sale deed in favour of Bhuri Begum, fraudulently, for the same plot, prior to execution of sale deed by Zannat. Hence, it was a dishonest deception by Dinesh Baghel and Kanta Devi, who had taken money in lieu of promise for making transfer of above plot and there was evidence to this effect, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., which stood further corroborated by evidence, recorded, under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., that is why summoning order was passed for offence, punishable, under above sections, against the applicants. 5. In exercise of inherent power, conferred by Section 482 of Cr.P.C., factual aspect is not to be appreciated by this Court because of same being question of fact. Allegations made in the complaint are supported by evidence, recorded in the enquiry, by the Magistrate, hence cannot be interfered with by this Court. 6. Section 482 Cr.P.C, provides that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers 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. 7. Meaning thereby this inherent power is with High Court (I) to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any other order under this Code (II) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court (III) or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gaurishetty Mahesh, (2010) 6 JT 588 SC : (2010) 6 SCALE 767 : 2010 Cr. LJ 3844 has propounded that "While exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable apprehension of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge/Court". LJ 3844 has propounded that "While exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable apprehension of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge/Court". In another subsequent Hamida v. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474 , hon'ble Apex Court propounded that "Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 at an interlocutory stage which after filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed procedure, or to delay the trial which enable to win over the witness or may disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately resulting in miscarriage of Justice". In again another subsequent Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781 , the Apex Court has propounded "Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself." While interpreting this jurisdiction of High Court Apex Court in Popular Muthiah v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296 has propounded "High Court can exercise jurisdiction suo motu in the interest of justice. It can do so while exercising other jurisdictions such as appellate or revisional jurisdiction. No formal application for invoking inherent jurisdiction is necessary. Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised in respect of substantive as well as procedural matters. It can as well be exercised in respect of incidental or supplemental power irrespective of nature of proceedings". 8. It can do so while exercising other jurisdictions such as appellate or revisional jurisdiction. No formal application for invoking inherent jurisdiction is necessary. Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised in respect of substantive as well as procedural matters. It can as well be exercised in respect of incidental or supplemental power irrespective of nature of proceedings". 8. Regarding prevention of abuse of process of Court, Apex Court in Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana Kumar, (1990) CriLJ 320 (DB) : AIR 1990 SC 494 has propounded "To prevent abuse of the process of the Court, High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482 could quash the proceedings but there would be justification for interference only when the complaint did not disclose any offence or was frivolous vexatious or oppressive" as well as in State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) CriLJ 1005 : AIR 1989 SC 1 , Apex Court propounded "In exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 High Court would not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not". 9. Meaning thereby, exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded as above. 10. In view of what has been discussed above, this Application, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.