Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2600 (ALL)

Sanjay Verma v. State of U. P.

2019-11-20

RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by Sanjay Verma against State of U.P. and another, with a prayer for setting aside impugned charge-sheet and cognizance taking order dated 31.5.2016, in Criminal Case No. 889 of 2016, State Vs. Sanjay Verma, under Sections 354 of I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Ballia, pending before Court of A.C.J.M. Ist, Ballia. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. representing the State. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that opposite party No. 2 Rekha Verma, who is informant-complainant of present case, lodged under Section 354 of IPC, is an accused in a case of murder of Omji Verma, which was manipulated by her to be shown as a railway accident death whereas FIR was got lodged and matter was investigated wherein, final report was submitted, against which protest petition was filed and order for further investigation was prayed. This is a false case lodged as counter blast for alleged occurrence after a delay. This offence under Section 354 of IPC as Case Crime No. 567 of 2016, was got registered, upon an application moved under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., wherein, investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet No. 71 of 2016 dated 3.4.2016. Cognizance by Magistrate was taken on 31.5.2016. Occurrence was said to be of 3.11.2015 and case was registered on 15.3.2016. In between, above case of murder was got registered, wherein, she has moved an application regarding no enmity with anyone and it being death under railway accident. This was an offence of murder. Hence, this counter blast case was a result of concoction. But, trial Court failed to appreciate it, hence, this application for preventing abuse of process of law. Thereby, prayer for setting aside impugned charge-sheet and cognizance taking order with entire proceeding of above criminal case was prayed for. 4. Learned counsel for other side vehemently opposed with this contention that complainant is widow lady of 25 years, with no issue. Accused applicant is real brother of her husband. With a view to oust her from her property, this false case was got registered because death was owing to railway accident and investigation resulted in submission of final report. This case was reported by G.R.P. too, that it was a case of accident. Accused applicant is real brother of her husband. With a view to oust her from her property, this false case was got registered because death was owing to railway accident and investigation resulted in submission of final report. This case was reported by G.R.P. too, that it was a case of accident. In the present case, he was subjected to molestation in her room, wherein, accused was residing being elder brother of her deceased husband. For this, she ran from pillar to post for getting cae registered and ultimately, this could be registered and investigated, wherein, charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken. Hence, this application. 5. Having heard learned counsels for both sides as well as learned AGA and gone thourgh the material placed on record, it is apparent that a case under Section 302 of IPC was got registered by way of application moved under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for murder of Omji Verma but it resulted in submission of final report and in police record too, it was a case of railway accident. Moreso, this Court is not to give any opinion about facts of above case or any proceeding regarding it but so far as present case is concerned and there is accusation of molestation by complainant-informant against accused-applicant, who is real brother of her deceased husband and it has been substantiated by her in her statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.c. Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet and Magistrate applied its legal mind and thereby, took cognizance over this offence under Section 354 of IPC, which was substantiated by facts on record. 6. This Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is never expected to make meticulous analysis of facts and evidence for filing of charge-sheet or not, charge-sheet has been filed on the basis of evidence collected by Investigating Officer. There seems no misuse of process of law as propounded by Apex Court:- "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". 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) 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". 7. Meaning thereby, exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is within the limits. This appeal merits its dismissal. Dismissed, accordingly. 8. Interim order, if any, got vacated. 9. However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days and no more from today and applies for bail, his 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. Till then no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant. 10. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.