Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2380 (ALL)

Devendra Singh v. State of U. P.

2019-10-19

RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ram Krishna Gautam, J. This proceeding, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In Short 'Cr.P.C.), has been filed by the applicants, Devendra Singh and three others, against State of U.P. and Lalta Prasad, Opposite party no.2, with a prayer for setting aside, entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.511 of 2018 (Lalta Prasad vs. Devendra Singh and others), under Sections 406, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Mau Darwaja, District Farrukhabad, pending before the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, City Farrukhabad. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants have been falsely implicated and have been summoned for above offences, in above complaint case, under above Sections of IPC, whereas, complainant, Lalta Prasad, was having no Bank Account nor any means for crediting Rs.50,000/- in the Account of Devendra Singh nor any question arises of usurping above amount by the applicants nor any such offence ever took place. It was a concocted complaint wherein summoning order has been passed. Hence, this proceeding, with above prayer. 3. Learned AGA, representing State of U.P., has vehemently opposed this proceeding. 4. From very perusal of of the summoning order, it is apparent that a complaint was filed by Opposite party no.2, Lalta Prasad, against applicants with a contention that complainant's son has deposited Rs.50,000/-, in the Account of Devendra Singh and it was usurped by Devendra Singh. On 3.12.2018, at 9.30 AM, while complainant was present infront of his house, Devendra Singh, Son of Mangli Prasad, Amit, Son of Devendra Singh, Sabal Singh, Son of Devendra Singh, Malti, wife of Devendra Singh, all Residents of Beni Nagla, Police Station- Mau Darwaja, District Farrukhabad, in joint mensrea, came there and started abusing in filthy language and extended threat in case of demanding back of above money. When complainant tried to save himself, by hiding inside the house, all of them trespassed and assaulted him and his son, who came to rescue him, by Lathi and Danda, also misbehaved with his daughter-in-law, and upon rescue call being made by the complainant, Narvir, Son of Sohan Lal, Upendra, Son of Lalta Prasad and other villagers gathered there. After seeing gathering of villagers, accused persons ran away from the spot by extending threat of dire consequences, in case of opening of lips to the Police. After seeing gathering of villagers, accused persons ran away from the spot by extending threat of dire consequences, in case of opening of lips to the Police. An Application was moved before the Superintended of Police, but of no avail. Hence, instant complaint was filed, wherein, complainant was examined, under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., and the same reiteration was made in the statement, as was narrated in the complaint, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Two of witnesses, namely, PW-1, Rani and PW-2, Maharam were examined, under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. They too have said the same version as was there in the statement of complainant and on the basis of it, there was prima facie evidence for summoning for cognizable offence, punishable, under Sections 406, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC. Hence, accused persons, Devendra Singh, Amit, Sabal Singh and Malti were summoned for offences, punishable, under Sections 406, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC. 5. Perusal of statement, recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. shows that it supports finding of the summoning order and this Court, in exercise of inherent power, vested, under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., is not supposed to interfere, unless there is abuse of process of law or evidence on record was otherwise. 6. 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 (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. 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. 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 view of what has been discussed above, this Application, filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.