Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2157 (ALL)

Aniruddha Sharma v. State of U. P.

2019-09-17

RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM

body2019
ORDER : 1. The applicant, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the summoning order dated 24.04.2018, passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Chandausi, District Sambhal in Complaint Case No. 66 of 2017 (arising out of Case Crime No. 655 of 2016), under Sections 352, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. Police Station Chandausi, District Sambhal as well as entire proceedings of above mentioned case, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Chandausi, District Sambhal. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for applicant argued that it is a malicious prosecution with false concoction. A case was got registered, in which final report was submitted. Thereafter, protest petition was filed, which was treated as complaint, wherein complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and his witnesses were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, summoning order was passed, whereas the facts were not constituting offences, for which applicant was summoned. 4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer. 5. From the perusal of first information report, lodged as Case Crime No. 655 of 2016, it is apparent that complainant Sanjeev Kumar Varshneya got this case lodged against Aniruddha Sharma for offence punishable under Sections 352, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. This was investigated and resulted in submission of final report. Notice was issued to complainant, who appeared and filed protest petition. Trial court treated it as complaint case. Thereafter, complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and his witnesses were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, summoning order was passed, against which this proceeding has been filed. The very contention of protest petition has been reiterated by complainant in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. This has further been corroborated by testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Trial court on the basis of above evidence passed impugned summoning order. 6. This Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not expected to appreciate and analise factual aspect of case because the same is a question of evidence before trial Court. Whatever is there on record is the basis of summoning of Aniruddha Sharma for offence punishable under Sections 352, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. 7. 6. This Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not expected to appreciate and analise factual aspect of case because the same is a question of evidence before trial Court. Whatever is there on record is the basis of summoning of Aniruddha Sharma for offence punishable under Sections 352, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. 7. Saving of inherent power of High Court, as given under 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. 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 vs. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6) SC 588 : (2010) 6 SCALE 767 : 2010 Cr. L.J. 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. L.J. 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 vs. 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 vs. 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 vs. 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. Regarding prevention of abuse of process of Court, Apex Court in Dhanlakshmi vs. R. Prasana Kumar, (1990) Cr. L.J. 320 : 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 vs. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr. L.J. 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 the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there seems to be no ground for interfering in the aforesaid case. 11. The application is accordingly rejected.