Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2166 (ALL)

Shipra Singh v. State of U. P.

2019-09-18

RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM

body2019
JUDGMENT : RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State. 2. This application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceeding including summoning order dated 17.06.2019 in Complaint Case No. 333 of 2019, under Sections 323,504,506 I.P.C., Police Station Expressway Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Diwakar Pratap Singh Versus Shipra Singh, pending before Civil Judge (Senior Division) F.T.C. / A.C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for applicant argued that applicant Shipra Singh is wife of Diwakar Pratap Singh and there occurred an occurrence, for which first information report was got lodged against Diwakar Pratap Singh and his mother, in which charge sheet was filed. As a counter blast, this complaint was filed with malicious prosecution, wherein complainant Diwakar Pratap Singh has given a false statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and his two witnesses were of false contention under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The summoning for offence punishable under Sections 323,504,506 I.P.C. was malicious having no evidence for it. Hence, this application with above prayer. 4. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 argued that this complaint was filed prior to registration of first information report lodged against Diwakar Pratap Singh and his mother upon report of Shipra Singh on 08.12.2018. The contention was said in complaint and it was reiterated in statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., which was having full corroboration in the testimony of two witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The trial Magistrate has passed the impugned summoning order well within jurisdiction on the basis of evidence placed on record. Hence, this application be rejected accordingly. 5. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer. 6. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through material placed on record, it is apparent that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by Diwakar Pratap Singh with contention that he was married with Shipra Singh and a daughter Amishi Singh, aged about eight years, was blessed by this marriage. Marriage was of 15.02.2008. The behaviour of Shipra Singh was torturous towards Diwakar Pratap Singh. She used to abuse very often. He was under wait that things will become normal, but of no avail. Rather she developed illicit relation with a co-worker. Complainant left his home, but she under nefarious design on 24.10.2018 took Rs.45,000/- along with golden and silver ornaments from a Bank locker, being operated jointly. She used to abuse very often. He was under wait that things will become normal, but of no avail. Rather she developed illicit relation with a co-worker. Complainant left his home, but she under nefarious design on 24.10.2018 took Rs.45,000/- along with golden and silver ornaments from a Bank locker, being operated jointly. Again on 26.10.2018 cash and jewellery was taken, which was reported to be opened by Shipra Singh on 26.10.2018. Again a threat with abuse was extended through telephonic call on 28.10.2018. Complainant was offensive of future of his daughter, aged about eight years, but Shipra Singh used to beat her very often, which was recorded in C.C.T.V. footage. Shipra Singh hatched conspiracy for killing complainant under assistance of others. A report was made at police station as well as to Senior Superintendent of Police, Gautam Buddh Nagar, but of no avail. Hence, this application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved. It was registered as complaint case, wherein complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and his two witnesses were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The very contention of complaint was reiterated and corroborated in those testimony and after perusal of same learned Magistrate passed impugned summoning order for offence punishable under Sections 323,504,506 I.P.C. 7. Previous institution of case by Shipra Singh against Diwakar Pratap Singh and his mother is an evidence of motive or cause either in execution of offence or in defence by either side. The same is a question of evidence and of fact to be seen in trial court. In present case the summoning order is passed on the basis of evidence obtained under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. 8. 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. 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 : (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". 9. 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". 9. 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". 10. In exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is not to analise the factual aspect because the same being question of trial and of fact to be seen before trial Court. Hence, in overall appreciation of facts and law, mentioned as above, this application merits its dismissal. 11. The application is accordingly dismissed.