Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1143 (ALL)

Raghav v. State of U. P.

2020-09-21

RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant Raghav against State of U.P. and Smt. Geeta with prayer to quash summoning order dated 05.11.2019 passed by C.J.M., Mainpuri, in Complaint Case No. 231 of 2017, Smt. Geeta Devi Vs. Raghav and others, under Sections 304B I.P.C., P.S. Bichawa, district Mainpuri, as well as the order dated 24.2.2020 passed by Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, in Criminal Revision No. 03 of 2020, Raghav Vs. State of U.P. and another. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by complainant and it was treated to be complaint case. Against this order dated 30.1.2017 the complaint filed Application u/s 482 No. 5870 of 2017, Smt. Geeta Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein proceeding was dismissed vide order dated 21.2.2017. Against this order dated 21.2.2017 the complainant filed and S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 7381 of 2017, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.5.2018 with direction for dismissal of all pending applications. This order of Apex Court was concealed and impugned summoning order was got obtained. This was a proceeding initiated after three and half months of occurrence and it was not an unnatural death. Rather it was a death during treatment, wherein the deceased had delivered a child and then after some complications were developed for which she was referred to higher centre and while being taken to higher centre at Agra, she succumbed on the way, for which there is a certificate of Medical Officer concerned, wherein above medical complication has been mentioned. Complainant and her family members were present during last rituals that is why no report was ever made and after three months, this false complaint was filed by complainant. It is an abuse of process of law. Hence this application with above prayer. 4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the above argument. 5. From the very perusal of order of Apex Court passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 7381 of 2017 arising out of final judgment and order dated 21.2.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5870 of 2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Smt. Geeta Devi Vs. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the above argument. 5. From the very perusal of order of Apex Court passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 7381 of 2017 arising out of final judgment and order dated 21.2.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5870 of 2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Smt. Geeta Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others, dated 16.5.2018 it is apparent that S.L.P. was dismissed and pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of has been passed i.e. nowhere this order is there that all proceedings pending with regard to complaint stand disposed of. Hence apparently inference argued by learned counsel for applicant is erroneous. Nowhere the Apex Court has directed for disposal of proceeding, as has been argued by learned counsel for applicant. In the proceeding u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 5870 of 2017, Smt. Geeta Vs. State of U.P. and 6 others, this court vide order dated 21.2.2017 has upheld the order of Magistrate dated 30.1.2017 with regard to registration of complaint case. Meaning thereby registration of complaint case, of which cognizance was taken by Magistrate for initiating enquiry u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. in alleged occurrence of dowry death, was upheld by this court. Now in the enquiry made by Magistrate, the statement of complainant is there that the deceased Sapna was married two years before with Raghav and since marriage she was subjected to cruelty with regard to demand of dowry of Rs. Two lacs cash and a car by her in-laws. This was complained by Sapna to her mother i.e. the complainant Smt. Geeta. The names of accused were disclosed by Sapna as Raghav, Brahmanand, Sharda, Sandeep, Anuradha and Dilip. There was a contention that Sapna was throttled and committed murder on 14.8.2016 by those in-laws. A telephonic call was received in the morning at 7 to 8 A.M. wherein they were apprised the occurrence and when the complainant rushed to the nuptial home of Sapna, last rituals of Sapna was done. When asked about, a threat was extended. This contention of complainant has been corroborated in the statements of witnesses recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate in its enquiry examined Ashok Kumar and Trilok u/s 202 Cr.P.C., wherein also corroboration is there. When asked about, a threat was extended. This contention of complainant has been corroborated in the statements of witnesses recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate in its enquiry examined Ashok Kumar and Trilok u/s 202 Cr.P.C., wherein also corroboration is there. On the basis of those evidence impugned summoning order dated 5.11.2019 was made wherein accused Raghav was summoned for the offence punishable u/s 304B I.P.C. Marriage within two years with Raghav is an admitted fact. Death at nuptial house while deceased was with her in-law is also an undisputed fact. Death under unnatural circumstances is said by complainant and her witnesses. Though certificate of Medical Officer has been filed by accused persons. Prima-facie case for summoning was seen by Magistrate on the basis of evidence collected by him under his enquiry u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Now the evidence being placed by accused is to be seen at appropriate stage after recording of statement u/s 244 Cr.P.C. or in any discharge application moved by accused. Till this juncture there is no abuse of process of law. 6. This court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is not expected to meticulously analyse the facts and evidence as it is within the domain of trial court. 7. 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. 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. 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) 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". 9. Meaning thereby, exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded as above. 10. Accordingly, there remains nothing for any indulgence in this proceeding. The prayer for quashing summoning order as well as proceeding of the aforesaid complaint case is refused and the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.