Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2172 (ALL)

Raju Lawaniya v. State Of U. P.

2019-09-18

RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ram Krishna Gautam, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed by Raju Lawaniya against State of U.P. and Mahesh Chand with a prayer for quashing summoning order and entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 5904 of 2017, (Mahesh Chand Vs. Raju Lawaniya), under Sections 420, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Tajganj, District Agra, pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IIIrd, Agra, District Agra. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that accused applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this very complaint case because of his registration of a case of theft of his motorcycle, which was recovered from the possession of son of Mahesh Chand, for which charge-sheet has been filed and no relief from this Court was granted to him. This occurrence was of year 2014 and with a view to influence above criminal case, this counterblast is by complainant, wherein no offence was made out, on the basis of evidence produced before the Magistrate, even then summoning order was passed, hence, this application with above prayer. 4. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the present proceeding. 5. Having heard learned counsels for both sides and gone through the impugned summoning order, it is apparent that the present complaint is of offence of deception, resulting forgery punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. wherein Rs. 2 lacs was taken with an assurance for getting job at Railway to son of complainant but this job was neither given nor money was returned back, for which persistent demand was being made by complainant and protest was being lodged, as a result of this on 25.6.2017, assault with abuse and a criminal intimidation was made by accused persons, when complainant and his family members were at their home. This occurrence was reiterated by complainant in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. This has further been reiterated by two witnesses of complainant, examined under Section 202 of Cr.P.C and trial Court, on the basis of those testimony, has passed impugned summoning order dated 5.2.2019 regarding Raju Lawaniya for offence punishable under Sections 420, 504, 506 I.P.C. 6. This occurrence was reiterated by complainant in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. This has further been reiterated by two witnesses of complainant, examined under Section 202 of Cr.P.C and trial Court, on the basis of those testimony, has passed impugned summoning order dated 5.2.2019 regarding Raju Lawaniya for offence punishable under Sections 420, 504, 506 I.P.C. 6. Previous incident or report of same or pendency of criminal trial, is of no concern with present occurrence, it may be a motive or basis of difference by either side, which is to be seen by trial Court in appreciation of evidence at the time of appreciation and judicial decision making. Regarding present occurrence, there is testimony of complainant and his two witnesses on the basis of which this summoning order has been passed. 7. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is quoted as under:- "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 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". 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". 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". 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. Hence, this Court is not to analyze the factual evidence in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, this proceeding merits its dismissal. 9. The present application stands dismissed, accordingly.