Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2381 (ALL)

Ram Sahay v. State of U. P.

2019-10-19

RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ram Krishna Gautam, J. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Ram Sahay, Shriram, Nisha Devi, Vandana and Ajay against State of U.P. and Hari Lal Yadav with prayer for quashing entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.4314 of 2019, Harilal Yadav Vs. Ram Sahay and others, under Sections 323, 504, 452, 379 I.P.C., P.S. Saraimeer, district Azamgarh, pending in court of A.C.J.M, Court No. 12, Azamgarh. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for applicants argued that it is a false case got registered after lapse of two years for an occurrence for which Case Crime No. 101 of 2015 was got registered on 7.6.2015 for the offences punishable u/s 147, 148, 452, 352, 323, 325, 504 I.P.C. against Harilal, Kalpu Yadav, Shailendra, and three others, wherein investigation resulted in submission of charge sheet and the same is pending. The same occurrence has been complained in the present complaint and general allegations against six accused persons were levelled, but one Ravindra was not summoned and others five applicants have been summoned for the offences punishable u/s 323, 504, 452, 379 I.P.C., whereas this was apparently a counter blast with a view to harass informant and prosecution witnesses of above previously instituted case and those medical documents were of 7.6.2015, whereas medico legal reports of the applicants were of 6.6.2015 i.e. instant medical report. Hence this application be allowed and thereby proceeding of complaint case be quashed. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application 5. Having heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA, it is apparent that the occurrence of 6.6.2015 is undisputed fact. The same occurrence has been complained in the present complaint. Name of accused persons is there in above previously registered F.I.R. Accused persons are complainant in the present case. They too have suffered injuries, which were examined on 7.6.2015. They have moved application before police authority for getting their case registered, but this was not registered. Hence this complaint was filed. The trial Judge has recorded statements of complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. as well as of witnesses u/s 202 Cr.P.C. They are in full corroboration with each other having full reiteration of statement of complainant and on the basis of same learned trial Magistrate passed the summoning order. Hence this complaint was filed. The trial Judge has recorded statements of complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. as well as of witnesses u/s 202 Cr.P.C. They are in full corroboration with each other having full reiteration of statement of complainant and on the basis of same learned trial Magistrate passed the summoning order. Minute details, being argued, being appreciation of facts and evidence, are not be made in the proceeding u/s 482 Cr.P.C. in exercise of inherent power. 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. 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. Hence, under above facts and circumstances, there is no ground for this application. 10. Accordingly, the application is rejected. 11. However, in case the applicants surrender before before the court concerned within 30 days from today and apply for bail, it will decide their bail application in wake of the law laid down by this Court in the Full Bench decision of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., (2005) CriLJ 755 affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2009) 4 SCC 437 . 12. State of U.P., (2005) CriLJ 755 affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2009) 4 SCC 437 . 12. For a period of 30 days from today, which shall not be extended further in any case, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants, in the above mentioned case.