Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 578 (ALL)

Pooja v. State of U. P.

2020-02-24

RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. 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 impugned order dated 18.01.2012, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Bulandshahar in Session Trial No. 579 of 2011, arising out of Case Crime No.175 of 2010, State Versus Madan and others, under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., Police Station Ahmedgarh, District Bulandshahar. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for applicant argued that applicant is of no concern with offence of murder of Sonu. There is no connecting evidence against her. On the basis of her confessional statement, charge sheet has been filed, whereas prosecution version is that she was under illicit relation with Anil. It was witnessed by Sonu and Ganesh, who were residing with husband of applicant at his home. They protested this illicit relation. Applicant entered in conspiracy with Anil for getting rid from Ganesh and Sonu. In between, Anil was murdered, wherein Ganesh and Sonu were accused for offence of murder. Ganesh was detained in judicial custody. Sonu was subsequently murdered. For this offence of murder, case was got registered against one Madan. Subsequently, Madan and Deepak were added as party and on the basis of alleged illicit relation, charge sheet has been filed against applicant. Learned Additional Sessions Judge opined and framed charge for offence punishable under Section 302, 201 I.P.C., which was challenged before this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 26741 of 2011 and this Court vide order dated 21.11.2011 allowed above application, thereby quashed order of framing of charge against applicant. The file was remanded back to trial court for hearing afresh and passing order over application moved under Section 227 Cr.P.C., in view of discussions, made by this Court, in above order. After hearing both sides, application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was rejected and subsequently an order for framing of charge for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and its conspiracy punishable under Section 201 I.P.C. was passed, which has been assailed in this proceeding. 4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application with this contention that there is a prima facie case for filing of charge sheet and cognizance taken over it. 4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application with this contention that there is a prima facie case for filing of charge sheet and cognizance taken over it. At the time of framing of charge, meticulous and detailed analysis of facts is not to be made by trial court. Even on the basis of strong suspicion, charge may be framed and it has been rightly been framed by trial court. Hence, this application be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through material placed on record coupled with order of this Court, passed in Application U/S 482 No. 26741 of 2011 (supra), it is apparent that trial court at the stage of disposal of application under Section 227, 228 Cr.P.C. need not to make meticulous analysis of evidence on record. Rather a prima facie case is to be seen as to whether there exist prima facie case for framing of charge and prima facie case is to be decided in view of guidelines given by apex court in Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, JT 2010 (10) SC 413. The apex court in Palwinder Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh and others; (2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 504 has propounded that jurisdiction of learned Sessions Judge, while exercising power under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is limited. Charge can be framed also on the basis of strong suspicion. Marshaling and appreciation of evidence is not in the domain of court at that point of time. Pre-trial acquittal not permitted. Pre-trial charge acquittal is never accepted. The Court cannot appreciate evidence at the stage of framing of charge. The same law has been propounded by apex court in Shoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Anr; AIR 2013 Supreme Court 52. 6. In present case, initially charge was framed for offence under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. and this order was set aside by Court, as above, with a direction for deciding the same afresh. The accusations since the lodging of first information report was that Smt. Pooja was under illicit relations with Anil and it was seen by her Dewar (brother-in-law) and Sonu (neighbour), who had protested it. This compelled Pooja for hatching conspiracy with Anil for getting rid from Ganesh and Sonu. Ganesh and Sonu were taken by Anil to the shop of Deepak at Delhi. This compelled Pooja for hatching conspiracy with Anil for getting rid from Ganesh and Sonu. Ganesh and Sonu were taken by Anil to the shop of Deepak at Delhi. They were present in company in close proximity of time when Anil was found dead and a case was got lodged for offence of murder of Anil against Ganesh and Sonu, wherein Ganesh is in judicial custody. For getting rid of Sonu and for getting the revenge of above murder, Madan and Deepak hatched conspiracy with Smt. Pooja, wherein Sonu was taken by Madan and Deepak and under close proximity of time he remained with them. Subsequently, his dead body was found. Autopsy examination followed by inquest proceeding established death of Sonu as a result of anti mortem injuries. Meaning thereby, it was not a suicide or accidental death. Rather it was a homicide death and this homicide death was instantly complained by his father to be a murder by Smt. Pooja under conspiracy with Madan and Deepak and motive for this conspiracy was said to be illicit relation in between Anil and Pooja, for which there was persistent resistance by Ganesh and Sonu. Last seen evidence of Sonu being in company of Deepak and Madan; the motive for this murder; hatching of conspiracy for elimination of Ganesh and Sonu by Pooja in connivance with Anil; subsequently with Deepak and Madan was therein case diary. The other witnesses, examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C., have reiterated those ingredients. It was coupled with statement of those co-accused persons as well as of Smt. Pooja. Though, statement of accused, made to police, while in custody, is not admissible, but it being a statement of accomplices and statements in close proximity of time and their conduct are to be seen at the time of making of judicial decision making, but under all those facts and circumstances, learned trial court concluded for framing of charge for offence of conspiracy for murder, followed by murder of Sonu, against applicant Pooja and this was on the basis of evidence, on the basis of which charge sheet was filed and cognizance was taken by Magistrate. Hence, for this order, there was sufficient reason and evidence on record. 7. Moreso, this Court, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not to embark upon factual matrix, because it may prejudice fair trial. 8. Hence, for this order, there was sufficient reason and evidence on record. 7. Moreso, this Court, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not to embark upon factual matrix, because it may prejudice fair trial. 8. 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". 9. 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". 10. Meaning thereby, exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded as above. Accordingly, this application merits its dismissal. The application is dismissed as such.