Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1100 (ALL)

Balvir Singh @ Shintu Singh v. State Of U. P.

2020-08-31

RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The applicant, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the entire proceeding against the applicant in Session Trial No. 132 of 2009 (State Versus Pintu Singh and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 263 of 2009, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Cant. District Gorakhpur, pending in the court of learned Additional Session Judge / Special Judge, Gangster Act, Gorakhpur as well as impugned order dated 05.03.2020. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that accused applicant has been falsely implicated in this case crime number, whereas in criminal antecedent given against him at serial nos. 1 and 3, he has been acquitted by the trial court. Case no. 2 is a counter blast of the first information report got lodged by applicant. Case no. 4 is the case, in which applicant is informant. On this gang chart, he has been charge sheeted for offence punishable under Gangster Act. This was raised before trial court with request for discharge in this session case, but trial court rejected the same vide impugned order dated 05.03.2020. It was an abuse of process of law. Hence, this application with above prayer. 4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through material placed on record, it is apparent that application 26Kha was moved by accused Balvir Singh @ Shintu, under Sections 227 read with 235 of IPC for discharge in Case Crime No. 263 of 2009, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangster Act. This was with contention that applicant had never been a member of any gang nor he is concerned of any gang. He is one amongst two of his brothers. His elder brother is Brijesh Singh alias Pintu. No relation amongst them is there. Both of them are having separate living. Gang chart prepared by police station is dated 30.11.2009 and the same was got approved by the then District Magistrate. This ensure that proceeding was a mechanical process. No application of mind was there. His elder brother is Brijesh Singh alias Pintu. No relation amongst them is there. Both of them are having separate living. Gang chart prepared by police station is dated 30.11.2009 and the same was got approved by the then District Magistrate. This ensure that proceeding was a mechanical process. No application of mind was there. On the basis of above report and its approval, Case Crime No. 263 of 2009 was got registered at police station on 30.01.2009 at 23.30 P.M. Four cases were shown against applicant and he was shown to be involved with Pintu Singh, in above alleged gang, having his involvement in three cases, whereas applicant was of no criminal antecedent. Pintu Singh, who is real brother of applicant, was with inimical terms since 1999. Hence, no question of any gang ever arisen. His property was illegally attached under Gangster Act, but the same was got released by High Court after setting aside order of District Magistrate, Gorakhpur as well as Special Judge, Gorakhpur. No offence under Gangster Act is made out against applicant. Hence, this application for discharge was moved. After hearing, learned Special Judge has rejected the same. At the time of framing of charge meticulous analysis of fact and evidence is not to be made, rather substance of alleged charge is to be seen, as has been propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in so many cases and reported in case of Palwinder Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh and others; (2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 504. Meticulous analysis of facts and evidence at the time of framing of charges may lead prejudice against fair trial. Pre-trial acquittal after appreciation of evidence and fact is also not pleaded. Hence, trial court after appreciating facts and circumstances of present case has rejected discharge application and thereby directed for presence of accused for framing of charge. Acquittal in any criminal case does not delete criminal antecedent and what is the merit is to be appreciated on the basis of evidence. This is within domain of trial court. The High Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not to analyze factual matrix, because it may again prejudice fair trial. 6. Acquittal in any criminal case does not delete criminal antecedent and what is the merit is to be appreciated on the basis of evidence. This is within domain of trial court. The High Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not to analyze factual matrix, because it may again prejudice fair trial. 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. Accordingly, this application merits its dismissal. Dismissed as such.