Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2758 (ALL)

Sugreev Nishad v. State Of U. P.

2019-12-11

RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ram Krishna Gautam, J. The applicants, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 13.09.2017, bailable warrant dated 30.07.2018 and 22.10.2019, issued by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist, Ballia as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 345 of 2013 (Pramila Devi Vs. Sugreev Nishad and others), pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist, Ballia, under Section 392 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Rasra, District Ballia. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. representing the State. 3. Learned counsel for applicants argued that applicant no. 2 is father of applicant no. 1. As per prosecution itself, there had been enmity regarding preparation of Visa and this was the reason that this malicious prosecution. No such occurrence ever occurred. Police report of this fact is there that no such occurrence has occurred, even then, impugned summoning order has been passed. Hence, this application with above prayer. 4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application with this contention that complaint is reiterated in statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.. Prima facie, there was sufficient evidence for passing of summoning order. 5. From the perusal of material brought on record, it is apparent that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved with this contention that on 09.11.2013, complainant along with her jethani Sushila Devi and Gulabchandra was on her way to her home. At about 2.30 P.M. after getting withdrawal of Rs.2,00,000/- from Union Bank Siuri Amhat,? Sugreev Nishad, his father Vikram Nishad along with two other unknown apprehended and snatched pocket having Rs.2,00,000/- kept in it. On hue and cry, many persons rushed, but they could not be apprehended. Matter was reported at police station. This contention has been reiterated in statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and on the basis of evidence, collected by Magistrate in its enquiry, impugned summoning order for offence punishable under Section 392 I.P.C. was passed. 6. This Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not expected to embark upon the factual matrix because the same is question before trial court to be seen during trial.? 7. 6. This Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not expected to embark upon the factual matrix because the same is question before trial court to be seen during trial.? 7. Moreso, 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". 8. 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". 9. Meaning thereby, exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded as above. 10. The prayer for quashing summoning order as well as proceeding of the aforesaid criminal case is refused. 11. However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within four weeks from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants 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., 2004 57 AllLR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC) 12. State of U.P., 2004 57 AllLR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC) 12. For a period of four weeks from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. 13. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them. 14. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.