Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2150 (ALL)

Manisha @ Ranu v. State of UP

2019-09-17

RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ram Krishna Gautam, J. This Application, under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, has been filed by Smt. Manisha @ Ranu, against State of U.P. and others, challenging the order dated 30.5.2018, passed in the Complaint Case No. 1299 of 2017, Smt. Manisha vs. Vivek Kumar and others, under Section 498-A, 406, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District Jhansi, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Jhansi as well as order of the Revisional Court, dated 15.5.2019, passed in Criminal Revision No. 131 of 2018, Smt. Manisha vs. State of U.P. and others, passed by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Jhansi, with a prayer for allowing this application and quashing of impugned order, dated 30.5.2018 in above Complaint Case No. 1299 of 2017, as well as order of the Revisional court, dated 15.5.2019 and for summoning of Opposite party nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, in Complaint Case No. 1299 of 2017, Smt. Manisha vs. Vivek Kumar and others, under Sections 498-A,406,323,504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Mahila Thana, Jhansi. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the complaint was filed against Vivek Kumar @ Santosh Kumar (Husband), Daya Ram Prajapati, Ashok Kumar Prajapati, Ganesh Prasad Prajapati, Smt. Poonam @ Pukkhan, and Smt. Rajni for offence punishable, under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, Jhansi, but the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order of summoning whereby only Opposite party no.1, husband of the complainant, has been summoned for offence, punishable, under Sections 498-A,406,323,504 and 506 IPC, read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, leaving behind other accused persons whereas there was sufficient evidence on record, under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., against those accused persons, but they were not summoned. Criminal Revision, under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. was filed against the impugned summoning order wherein the order of Magistrate was confirmed and revision was dismissed. Hence, this proceeding, with above prayer. 3. Learned AGA, representing State of U.P., has vehemently opposed this Application, filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 4. This Court, in exercise of inherent power, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not expected to analyze the factual aspect of the cases because the same remains with trial court, being question of fact. 5. Hence, this proceeding, with above prayer. 3. Learned AGA, representing State of U.P., has vehemently opposed this Application, filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 4. This Court, in exercise of inherent power, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not expected to analyze the factual aspect of the cases because the same remains with trial court, being question of fact. 5. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is the saving of inherent power of High Court, with a provision 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. 6. 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". 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". 7. 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". 8. Meaning thereby, exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded as above. 9. In the present case, complainant was examined, under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. wherein she has specifically levelled accusations against her husband only. She has said that she was married with Vivek Kumar on 30.4.2013 at Chirgaon and Vivek Kumar was in Job at Mumbari. She, after her marriage, made her first entry in his nuptial house at Chirgaon and she remained there for 15 days where her husband used to to always say that the marriage was settled for Rs.10 lakhs, as dowry, whereas complainant's father had given cash of Rs.8 Lakhs and house hold goods, valuing to Rs.2 lakhs. She, after her marriage, made her first entry in his nuptial house at Chirgaon and she remained there for 15 days where her husband used to to always say that the marriage was settled for Rs.10 lakhs, as dowry, whereas complainant's father had given cash of Rs.8 Lakhs and house hold goods, valuing to Rs.2 lakhs. Complainant remained with her husband for one year and she conceived pregnancy, when she has been sent to Baruasagar, where she delivered a family child on 7.7.2014. Again she was taken to Mumbai and was ill-treated by her husband Vivek Kumar, who demanded Rs.2 lakhs as the additional dowry there-at. He was a government employee in Railways, who used to give her of life and caused cruelty with the complainant. Her brother-in-law was also in Railways and was having a flat separately at a distance of ten steps from her nuptial house. This ill-treatment was owing to extortion by husband's sister-in-law. Her husband beaten her, while at Mumbai. Meaning thereby, no recital was there against in-laws regarding demand of dowry. Even, in the complaint, it has been written that gift was given to her husband by complaint's parents. Thus, on the basis of it, only husband was summoned for above offence and this order was confirmed in the revision as well by the revisional Court. 10. In view of above, the orders, impugned, do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity or defeat ends of justice. Hence, this proceeding, by way of Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., merits rejection and as such Application stands dismissed accordingly.