Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2580 (ALL)

Ram Singh v. State of U. P.

2019-11-18

RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The applicants Ram Singh, Guddu and Ram Vinay, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash summoning order dated 01.5.2019 passed by A.C.J.M. Court No. 11, Azamgarh, in Complaint Case No. 4433 of 2019, Sripatti Devi Vs. Ram Vinay and others, whereby summoning Ram Singh and Guddu for offence punishable u/s 323, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Ram Vinay for offence punishable u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. as well as entire proceedings of aforesaid complaint Case. 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 applicants are innocent. They have been summoned in Criminal Complaint Case No. 4433 of 2019 vide order dated 01.5.2019 passed by A.C.J.M. Court No. 11, Azamgarh, whereby summoning Ram Singh and Guddu for offence punishable u/s 323, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. whereas Ram Vinay for offence punishable u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., whereas a complaint was filed by Ram Vinay against complainant and others wherein summoning for offences punishable u/s 323, 504, 506, 354B I.P.C. against Pramod Verma, Vijay Verma and Monu Verma, whereas for offence punishable u/s 323, 504, 506, 107 I.P.C. against Santosh Verma was passed on 30.1.2017. Hence, as a counter blast after two years this false case was got registered, wherein impugned summoning order was passed. Hence, this application with prayer for quashing summoning order dated 1.5.2019 along with entire proceeding of complaint case no. 4422 of 2019 has been made. 4. Learned AGA vehemently opposed the aforesaid submission. 5. Complaint was filed by Smt. Sripatti Devi against Ram Vinay, Guddu and Ram Singh before the Court Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 21, Azamgarh, for offences punishable u/s 323, 504, 506, 452, 354, 376, 511 I.P.C. P.S. Atrauliya, District Azamgarh, for an occurrence of 20.6.2017 at 8.00 A.M. by way of registered report sent to Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh, on 24.6.2017. Complaint was filed by Smt. Sripatti Devi against Ram Vinay, Guddu and Ram Singh before the Court Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 21, Azamgarh, for offences punishable u/s 323, 504, 506, 452, 354, 376, 511 I.P.C. P.S. Atrauliya, District Azamgarh, for an occurrence of 20.6.2017 at 8.00 A.M. by way of registered report sent to Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh, on 24.6.2017. This complaint was taken cognizance by Magistrate and complainant was examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and her two witnesses Phoolmati, w/o Haridwar and Kanchan w/o Namwar were examined u/s 202 Cr.P.C. There were reiteration of contention of complaint in all those statements recorded on oath and the Magistrate after hearing on the basis of statements recorded summoned Ram Singh and Guddu for offence punishable u/s 323, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Ram Vinay for offence punishable u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. For this summoning order there was statements recorded in enquiry by the Magistrate, which was in corroboration with contents of complaint as well as medical evidence. There had been a dispute regarding a land in between complainant and Ram Vinay, who were residents of same Village. Guddu and Ram Singh were sons of Ram Vinay. The occurrence was said to be of 9.9.2015 at 4.30 P.M. when those accused persons along with Kaushalya and Indrakala made assault with complainant, Phoolmati, Kanchan and Ramawati. They were got examined at C.H.C. Koyalsa, Azamgarh. But entered into a compromise on the pretext of Station Officer, P.S. Atrauliya. Again second occurrence was of 20.6.2017 at 8.00 A.M. for which complaint was made. She was examined at District Hospital, Azamgarh, but no action was taken by Station Officer concerned as well as Superintendent of Police. Hence a request was made before the Magistrate for punishing accused persons for offences punishable u/s 323, 504, 506, 452, 354, 376, 511 I.P.C., wherein the Magistrate took cognizance, made enquiry, examined complainant u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and her witnesses u/s 202 Cr.P.C.. Reiteration of same contention was there. Hence impugned summoning order was passed. Previous accusation and previous summoning, which may be motive for the subsequent offence, it is not to be appreciated at this juncture by this court in exercise of inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. 6. Reiteration of same contention was there. Hence impugned summoning order was passed. Previous accusation and previous summoning, which may be motive for the subsequent offence, it is not to be appreciated at this juncture by this court in exercise of inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. 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, JT 2010 (6) SC 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". 7. Regarding prevention of abuse of process of Court, Apex Court in Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana Kumar, (1990) Cr LJ 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) Cr LJ 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 the above, meticulous and splitting analysis of the case is question of fact to be seen by the Trial Judge during trial. 10. Accordingly, this case lacks merits, is dismissed. 11. However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. 10. Accordingly, this case lacks merits, is dismissed. 11. However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 12. For the aforesaid period of 30 days from today, which shall not be extended further in any case, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.