SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Avdhesh vs State Of Up And Another on 19 April, 2019

HIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATALLAHABAD

A.F.R.

RESERVED

Case:-APPLICATIONU/S482No.-13583of2019

Applicant:-Avdhesh

OppositeParty:-StateOfUpAndAnother

CounselforApplicant:-B.N.Singh,SantoshKumarSingh

CounselforOppositeParty:-G.A.,ChandraJeetSingh,RanJeetSingh

Hon’bleSaurabhShyamShamshery,J.

1.

PresentApplicationunderSectionsection482Cr.P.Chasbeenpreferredassailingthechargesheetdated21.12.2018filedincasecrimeNo346of2018underSectionsection381IPC,PSTalbehat,DistrictLalitpurinthecourtofChiefJudicialMagistrateandalsotheorderofcognizancedated1.3.2019,wherebyapplicanthasbeensummoned.

2. HeardShriB.N.Singh,learnedcounselfortheApplicant,ShriRanjeetKumar,learnedcounselfortheOpp.PartyNo2andtheGovernmentadvocateforOpp.PartyNo1andperusedtherecord.TheApplicationisdecidedwiththeconsentofAdvocatesappearingonbehalfofthepartiesfinallyatthestageofadmissionitself.

3. Togooverthefactsbriefly,SmtNeelam,OppPartyNo2lodgedaFirstInformationReportregisteredatCaseCrimeNo346of2018on31.8.2018atPoliceStationTalbehat,DisttLalitpur,thecontentsofwhichwerethatshehadopenedashopinthenameandstyle”KushwahaBoreWales”atLaitpurforboringmachine.ApplicantAvadeshandDineshwereemployedtolookaftertheshopandmachine.On29.8.2018whenthecomplainant(OppPartyNo2)cametoheroffice,boringmachinewasfoundmissing.Afterassiduousefforts,itwasrevealedthatthesepersonshadstolenthemachinesduringnight.

4. Duringinvestigation,statementsofcomplainant(OppPartyNo2)SmtNeelam,RatanSingh(witness),PappuRekhwaar(witness),DashiKushwaha(witness),VeerSingh(Witness)andToranSingh(witness)wererecorded.

5. Duringinvestigation,theapplicantandDineshhadapproachedthisCourtbywayoffilingCriminalMiscWritPetitionNo27265of2018forquashingofFirstInformationreport.Theco-ordinateBenchofthisCourtdisposedofthesaidwritpetitionwiththedirectionthatthepetitionerthereinshallnotbearrestedtillthesubmissionofthePolicereportundersection173(2)Cr.P.C.

6. TheInvestigatingofficerafterconductinginvestigationsubmittedimpugnedchargesheetonlyagainsttheapplicanthereinandnotagainsttheDineshwhowasalsonamedintheFirstInformationReportunderSectionsection381IPCon21.12.2008.Later-on,learnedChiefJudicialMagistrate,Laitpurtookcognizanceoftheoffenceandsummonedtheapplicantunderorderdated1.3.2019whichisalsoimpugnedinthepresentApplication.

7. LearnedcounselappearingonbehalfoftheApplicantforcefullyarguedthat-

(I)OnthebasisofFirstInformationreport,andstatementsrecordedduringinvestigation,nooffence,evenprimafacie,ismadeoutagainsttheapplicant.

(II)Norecoveryoftheallegedstolenboringmachinehasbeenmadeout.

(III)Applicantisbrother-in-law(Jeeja)ofthehusbandoftheOppPartyno2andasthereweresomedisputeamongstthemandafterdeathofhusbandoftheOppPartyNo2,theapplicanthasbeenfalselyimplicatedandnominatedasaccusedinthepresentcase.

(IV)TheOppPartyno2inherstatementrecordedduringinvestigationhasimproveduponhercaseandaddednewfactssuchas,applicantandDineshwereemployedatshopduringthelifetimeofhusbandofOppPartyandafterhisdeath,boringmachinesweregiventoapplicantandDineshonrentofRs50000/-permonthandaboutasumofRs75000/-wasalsopaidtoOppPartyno2.On29.8.2018whenshewenttohershopneithertheboringmachinenorthesepersonsweretraceable.Accordinglythelearnedcounselfortheapplicantsubmittedthatsuchimprovementsshowsthattheentirestoryisfalse.IftheversionoftheOpppartyNo2isconsideredtobetrue,thenitwouldbeacaseofcontractwhichispurelyacivildispute.

(V)Theotherwitnesseswhosestatementswererecordedduringinvestigation,allegedlystatedthattheapplicantwascarryingboringmachineandgoingtowardsJhansion29.8.2018.However,theydeniedinvolvementofDinesh.Inthisregard,thelearnedcounselfortheapplicantsubmittedthatthesewitnesseswerewhollyunreliableandaremakingfalsestatements.

(VI)ThelearnedcounselfortheApplicantsubmittedthatingredientsofSection381IPCarenotdiscernibleastheApplicantwasneitheraclerkoraservantnoremployedinthecaspacityofaclerkorservantandthereforetheallegedtheftofboringmachinefromtheshopcannotbeconsideredatheftfromthepossessionofhismasteroremployer.ThereisnorelationshipbetweentheapplicantandtheOppositePartyno2asclerkorservantandmaster.

(VII)TheChiefJudicialMagistratehaspassedtheorderofcognizancedated1.3.2019withoutapplicationofmindastheorderisonanalreadyprintedproforma.

(VIII)ThecounselfurthersubmittedthatthisCourtinAnkitVsStateofU.P.andAnotherreportedinJ.I.C2000(1)432,hasheldthatsuchproformaorderscannotbeupheldasthesamearepassedwithoutapplicationofjudicialmind.ThecounselfurthercitedjudgmentpassedbyApexCourtinPepsiFoodsLimitedVsSpecialJudicialMagistrate(1997LawSuit(S.C)1340)whereinithasbeenheldthatsummoningofanaccusedinacriminalmatterisaseriousbusinessandordermustreflectthatMagistratehadappliedhismindtothefactsaswellaslawapplicablethereto.

8. Onthebasisofthesesubmissions,thelearnedcounselsubmittedthatcircumstancesandfactsofpresentcasewarrantinterferenceofthisCourtundertheinherentpowerprovidedunderSectionsection482Cr.P.C,toquashtheimpugnedchargesheetandimpugnedcognizance/summoningorder.

9. Percontra,learnedcounselfortheOppPartyno2submittedthatfromthematerialsplacedbeforethelearnedcourtbelow,primafaciecaseismadeoutagainsttheapplicantunderSectionsection381IPCandtheCourthasrightlytakencognizance.InherentpoweroftheHighCourtshouldbeexercisedsparinglyandonlyinexceptionalcircumstances.Inthepresentcase,accusedwasworkingasservantintheshopofhusbandofOppPartyno2andafterthedeathofhusbandofOppPartyNo2,applicantcontinuedtoworkasservant.However,hestartedpayingmoneyinlieuofworkdonebyhimandtakingmoneyfromtheclientsasOppPartybeingladycouldnotbeabletotakecareoftheshoponregularbasisandassuchingredientsoftheoffenceunderSectionsection381IPCaredisclosed.

10. ThelearnedcounselfortheStatefurthercontendsthatprimafacieoffenceismadeoutagainsttheapplicantandallsubmissionsraisedbyapplicantfallunderthearenaofdisputedfactswhichcannotbedecidedundertheproceedingofSectionsection482Cr.P.C

11. Consideredthesubmissionsraisedonbehalfoftherivalpartiesandscannedtheentirerecord.

Section381IPCbeingrelevantisquotedbelow-

“381.Theftbyclerkorservantofpropertyinpossessionofmaster.–Whoever,beingaclerkorservant,orbeingemployedinthecapacityofaclerkorservant,commitstheftinrespectofanypropertyinthepossessionofhismasteroremployer,shallbepunishedwithimprisonmentofeitherdescriptionforatermwhichmayextendtosevenyears,andshallalsobeliabletofine.”

FromtheaboveprovisionofSectionsection381IPCfollowingthreeingredientsarediscernible.

(a)Theaccusedwasemployedinthecapacityofclerkorservant.

(b)Hecommittedtheftinrespectofallegedproperty.

(c)Suchpropertywasinthepossessionofhisemployer.

12. Hon’bleSupremeCourtinthematterofFakhruddinAhmadVsStateofUttranchalandanotherreportedin(2008)17SCC157,discussedtheexpression”takingcognizanceofanoffence”byaMagistratewithincontemplationofSectionsection190oftheCr.P.CandalsodiscussedwhatmusthavebeentakennoticebytheMagistratewhiletakingcognizance.Paras13,14,15,16and17beingrelevantareabstractedbelow.

“11.Thenextincidentalquestionisastowhatismeantbyexpression`takingcognizanceofanoffence’byaMagistratewithinthecontemplationofSection190oftheCode?

12.Theexpression`cognizance’isnotdefinedinSectiontheCodebutisawordofindefiniteimport.AsobservedbythisCourtinAjitKumarPalitVs.StateofWestBengal2,theword`cognizance’hasnoesotericormysticsignificanceincriminallaworprocedure.Itmerelymeans–becomeaware2[1963]Supp.1S.C.R.9539ofandwhenusedwithreferencetoaCourtorJudge,totakenoticeofjudicially.ApprovingtheobservationsoftheCalcuttaHighCourtinEmperorVs.SourindraMohanChuckerbutty3,theCourtsaidthat`takingcognizancedoesnotinvolveanyformalaction;orindeedactionofanykind,butoccursassoonasaMagistrate,assuch,applieshismindtothesuspectedcommissionofanoffence.’

13.Recently,thisCourtinS.K.Sinha,ChiefEnforcementOfficerVs.VideoconInternationalLtd.Ors.4,speakingthroughC.K.Thakker,J.,whileconsideringtheambitandscopeofthephrase`takingcognizance’underSection190oftheCode,hashighlightedsomeoftheobservationsoftheCalcuttaHighCourtinSuperintendentRemembrancerofLegalAffairs,WestBengalVs.AbaniKumarBanerjee5,whichwereapprovedbythisCourtinR.R.ChariVs.StateofU.P.6.Theobservationsare:

3(1910)I.L.R.37Calcutta4124(2008)2SCC4925A.I.R.(37)1950Calcutta4376A.I.R.(38)1951SC20710″7….Whatis`takingcognizance’hasnotbeendefinedinSectiontheCriminalProcedureCode,andIhavenodesirenowtoattempttodefineit.Itseemstomeclear,however,thatbeforeitcanbesaidthatanyMagistratehastakencognizanceofanyoffenceunderSection190(1)(a)CrPC,hemustnotonlyhaveappliedhismindtothecontentsofthepetition,buthemusthavedonesoforthepurposeofproceedinginaparticularwayasindicatedinthesubsequentprovisionsofthisChapter,proceedingunderSection200,andthereaftersendingitforenquiryandreportunderSection202.WhentheMagistrateapplieshismindnotforthepurposeofproceedingunderthesubsequentsectionsofthisChapter,butfortakingactionofsomeotherkind,e.g.,orderinginvestigationunderSection156(3),orissuingasearchwarrantforthepurposeoftheinvestigation,hecannotbesaidtohavetakencognizanceoftheoffence.”

14.Fromtheafore-notedjudicialpronouncements,itisclearthatbeinganexpressionofindefiniteimport,itisneitherpracticablenordesirabletopreciselydefineastowhatismeantby`takingcognizance’.WhethertheMagistratehasorhasnottakencognizanceoftheoffencewilldependuponthecircumstancesoftheparticularcase,includingthemodeinwhichthecaseissoughttobeinstitutedandthenatureofthepreliminaryaction.

15.Nevertheless,itiswellsettledthatbeforeaMagistratecanbesaidtohavetakencognizanceofanoffence,itisimperativethathemusthavetakennoticeoftheaccusationsandappliedhismindtotheallegationsmadeinthecomplaintorinthepolicereportortheinformationreceivedfromasourceotherthanapolicereport,asthecasemaybe,andthematerialfiledtherewith.ItneedslittleemphasisthatitisonlywhentheMagistrateapplieshismindandissatisfiedthattheallegations,ifproved,wouldconstituteanoffenceanddecidestoinitiateproceedingsagainsttheallegedoffender,thatitcanbepositivelystatedthathehastakencognizanceoftheoffence.”(Emphasissupplied)

12. ThisCourtinthematterofAnkitVsStateofU.P.AndanotherreportedinJIC2010(1)page432hasheldthat-

“AlthoughasheldbythisCourtinthecaseofMeghNathGuptasAnrVStateofU.P.AndAnr,2008(62)ACC826,inwhichreferencehasbeenmadetothecasesofDeputyChiefControllerImportandExportVsRoshanLalAgarwal,2003(4^)ACC686(SC),UPPollutionControlBoardVsMohanMeakins,2000(2)JIC159(SC):AIR2000SC1456andKantiBhadraVsStateofWestBengal,2000(1)JIC751(SC):2000(40)ACC441(SC),theMagistrateisnotrequiredtopassdetailedreasonedorderatthetimeoftakingcognizanceonthechargesheet,butitdoesnotmeanthatorderoftakingcognizancecanbepassedbyfillinguptheblanksonprintedproforma.Atthetimeofpassinganyjudicialorderincludingtheordertakingcognizanceonthechargesheet,theCourtisrequiredtoapplyjudicialmindandeventheorderoftakingcognizancecannotbepassedinmechanicalmanner.Therefore,theimpugnedorderisliabletobequashedandthematterhastobesentbacktotheCourtbelowforpassingfreshorderonthechargesheetafterapplyingjudicialmind.”(Emphasissupplied)

14. Hon’bleSupremeCourtinthematterofVineetKumarandothersVsStateofUttarPradeshandanotherreportedin(2017)13SCC,369whileconsideringtheissueofscopeofSectionsection482Cr.P.Cregardingquashingofcriminalproceedingsheldinparas22,23,24,25,26,27,28,and29asunder:

“22.BeforeweenterintothefactsofthepresentcaseitisnecessarytoconsidertheambitandscopeofjurisdictionunderSection482Cr.P.C.vestedintheHighCourt.Section482Cr.P.C.savestheinherentpoweroftheHighCourttomakesuchordersasmaybenecessarytogiveeffecttoanyorderunderthisCode,ortopreventabuseoftheprocessofanyCourtorotherwisetosecuretheendsofjustice.

“23.ThisCourttimeandagainhasexaminedscopeofjurisdictionofHighCourtunderSection482Cr.P.C.andlaiddownseveralprincipleswhichgoverntheexerciseofjurisdictionofHighCourtunderSection482Cr.P.C.Athree-JudgeBenchofthisCourtinSectionStateofKarnatakavs.L.Muniswamyandothers,1977(2)SCC699,heldthattheHighCourtisentitledtoquashaproceedingifitcomestotheconclusionthatallowingtheproceedingtocontinuewouldbeanabuseoftheprocessoftheCourtorthattheendsofjusticerequirethattheproceedingoughttobequashed.Inparagraph7ofthejudgmentfollowinghasbeenstated:

“7….Intheexerciseofthiswholesomepower,theHighCourtisentitledtoquashaproceedingifitcomestotheconclusionthatallowingtheproceedingtocontinuewouldbeanabuseoftheprocessoftheCourtorthattheendsofjusticerequirethattheproceedingoughttobequashed.ThesavingoftheHighCourt’sinherentpowers,bothincivilandcriminalmatters,isdesignedtoachieveasalutarypublicpurposewhichisthatacourtproceedingoughtnottobepermittedtodegenerateintoaweaponofharassmentorpersecution.Inacriminalcase,theveiledobjectbehindalameprosecution,theverynatureofthematerialonwhichthestructureoftheprosecutionrestsandthelikewouldjustifytheHighCourtinquashingtheproceedingintheinterestofjustice.Theendsofjusticearehigherthantheendsofmerelawthoughjusticehasgottobeadministeredaccordingtolawsmadebythelegislature.ThecompellingnecessityformakingtheseobservationsisthatwithoutaproperrealisationoftheobjectandpurposeoftheprovisionwhichseekstosavetheinherentpowersoftheHighCourttodojustice,betweentheStateanditssubjects,itwouldbeimpossibletoappreciatethewidthandcontoursofthatsalientjurisdiction.”

24. ThejudgmentofthisCourtinSectionStateofHaryanaandothersvs.BhajanLalandothers,1992Supp(1)SCC335,haselaboratelyconsideredthescopeandambitofSection482Cr.P.C.AlthoughintheabovecasethisCourtwasconsideringthepoweroftheHighCourttoquashtheentirecriminalproceedingincludingtheFIR,thecasearoseoutofanFIRregisteredunderSection161,Section165IPCandSection5(2)ofthePreventionofCorruptionAct,1947.ThisCourtelaboratelyconsideredthescopeofSection482CR.P.C./SectionArticle226inthecontextofquashingtheproceedingsincriminalinvestigation.AfternoticingvariousearlierpronouncementsofthisCourt,thisCourtenumeratedcertainCategoriesofcasesbywayofillustrationwherepowerunder482SectionCr.P.C.canbeexercisedtopreventabuseoftheprocessoftheCourtorsecureendsofjustice.

25.Paragraph102whichenumerates7categoriesofcaseswherepowercanbeexercisedunderSection482Cr.P.C.areextractedasfollows:

“102.InthebackdropoftheinterpretationofthevariousrelevantprovisionsSectionoftheCodeunderChapterXIVandoftheprinciplesoflawenunciatedbythisCourtinaseriesofdecisionsrelatingtotheexerciseoftheextraordinarypowerunderSectionArticle226ortheinherentpowersunderSection482oftheCodewhichwehaveextractedandreproducedabove,wegivethefollowingcategoriesofcasesbywayofillustrationwhereinsuchpowercouldbeexercisedeithertopreventabuseoftheprocessofanycourtorotherwisetosecuretheendsofjustice,thoughitmaynotbepossibletolaydownanyprecise,clearlydefinedandsufficientlychannelizedandinflexibleguidelinesorrigidformulaeandtogiveanexhaustivelistofmyriadkindsofcaseswhereinsuchpowershouldbeexercised.

(1)Wheretheallegationsmadeinthefirstinformationreportorthecomplaint,eveniftheyaretakenattheirfacevalueandacceptedintheirentiretydonotprimafacieconstituteanyoffenceormakeoutacaseagainsttheaccused.

(2)Wheretheallegationsinthefirstinformationreportandothermaterials,ifany,accompanyingtheFIRdonotdiscloseacognizableoffence,justifyinganinvestigationbypoliceofficersunderSection156(1)oftheCodeexceptunderanorderofaMagistratewithinthepurviewofSection155(2)oftheCode.

(3)WheretheuncontrovertedallegationsmadeintheFIRorcomplaintandtheevidencecollectedinsupportofthesamedonotdisclosethecommissionofanyoffenceandmakeoutacaseagainsttheaccused.

(4)Where,theallegationsintheFIRdonotconstituteacognizableoffencebutconstituteonlyanon-cognizableoffence,noinvestigationispermittedbyapoliceofficerwithoutanorderofaMagistrateascontemplatedunderSection155(2)oftheCode.

(5)WheretheallegationsmadeintheFIRorcomplaintaresoabsurdandinherentlyimprobableonthebasisofwhichnoprudentpersoncaneverreachajustconclusionthatthereissufficientgroundforproceedingagainsttheaccused.

(6)WherethereisanexpresslegalbarengraftedinanyoftheprovisionsSectionoftheCodeortheconcernedAct(underwhichacriminalproceedingisinstituted)totheinstitutionandcontinuanceoftheproceedingsand/orwherethereisaspecificprovisioninSectiontheCodeortheconcernedAct,providingefficaciousredressforthegrievanceoftheaggrievedparty.

(7)Whereacriminalproceedingismanifestlyattendedwithmalafideand/orwheretheproceedingismaliciouslyinstitutedwithanulteriormotiveforwreakingvengeanceontheaccusedandwithaviewtospitehimduetoprivateandpersonalgrudge.”

26.Athree-JudgeBenchinSectionStateofKarnatakavs.M.Devenderappaandanother,2002(3)SCC89,hadoccasiontoconsidertheambitofSection482Cr.P.C.ByanalysingthescopeofSection482Cr.P.C.,thisCourtlaiddownthatauthorityoftheCourtexistsforadvancementofjusticeandifanyattemptismadetoabusethatauthoritysoastoproduceinjusticetheCourthaspowertopreventabuse.ItfurtherheldthatCourtwouldbejustifiedtoquashanyproceedingifitfindsthatinitiation/continuanceofitamountstoabuseoftheprocessofCourtorquashingoftheseproceedingswouldotherwiseservetheendsofjustice.Followingwaslaiddowninparagraph6:

“6……Allcourts,whethercivilorcriminalpossess,intheabsenceofanyexpressprovision,asinherentintheirconstitution,allsuchpowersasarenecessarytodotherightandtoundoawrongincourseofadministrationofjusticeontheprinciplequandolexaliquidalicuiconcedit,concederevideturetidsinequoresipsaeessenonpotest(whenthelawgivesapersonanythingitgiveshimthatwithoutwhichitcannotexist).Whileexercisingpowersunderthesection,thecourtdoesnotfunctionasacourtofappealorrevision.Inherentjurisdictionunderthesectionthoughwidehastobeexercisedsparingly,carefullyandwithcautionandonlywhensuchexerciseisjustifiedbythetestsspecificallylaiddowninthesectionitself.Itistobeexercisedexdebitojustitiaetodorealandsubstantialjusticefortheadministrationofwhichalonecourtsexist.Authorityofthecourtexistsforadvancementofjusticeandifanyattemptismadetoabusethatauthoritysoastoproduceinjustice,thecourthaspowertopreventabuse.Itwouldbeanabuseofprocessofthecourttoallowanyactionwhichwouldresultininjusticeandpreventpromotionofjustice.Inexerciseofthepowerscourtwouldbejustifiedtoquashanyproceedingifitfindsthatinitiation/continuanceofitamountstoabuseoftheprocessofcourtorquashingoftheseproceedingswouldotherwiseservetheendsofjustice.Whennooffenceisdisclosedbythecomplaint,thecourtmayexaminethequestionoffact.Whenacomplaintissoughttobequashed,itispermissibletolookintothematerialstoassesswhatthecomplainanthasallegedandwhetheranyoffenceismadeouteveniftheallegationsareacceptedintoto.”Furtherinparagraph8followingwasstated:

“8…..Judicialprocessshouldnotbeaninstrumentofoppression,or,needlessharassment.Courtshouldbecircumspectandjudiciousinexercisingdiscretionandshouldtakeallrelevantfactsandcircumstancesintoconsiderationbeforeissuingprocess,lestitwouldbeaninstrumentinthehandsofaprivatecomplainanttounleashvendettatoharassanypersonneedlessly.Atthesametimethesectionisnotaninstrumenthandedovertoanaccusedtoshort-circuitaprosecutionandbringaboutitssuddendeath.ThescopeofexerciseofpowerunderSection482oftheCodeandthecategoriesofcaseswheretheHighCourtmayexerciseitspowerunderitrelatingtocognizableoffencestopreventabuseofprocessofanycourtorotherwisetosecuretheendsofjusticeweresetoutinsomedetailbythisCourtinSectionStateofHaryanav.BhajanLal.”

25.SectionInSunderBabuandothersvs.StateofTamilNadu,2009(14)SCC244,thisCourtwasconsideringthechallengetotheorderoftheMadrasHighCourtwhereApplicationwasunderSection482Cr.P.C.toquashcriminalproceedingsunderSection498AIPCandSection4ofDowryProhibitionAct,1961.ItwascontendedbeforethisCourtthatthecomplaintfiledwasnothingbutanabuseoftheprocessoflawandallegationswereunfounded.TheprosecutingagencycontestedthepetitionfiledunderSection482Cr.P.C.takingthestandthatabareperusalofthecomplaintdisclosescommissionofallegedoffencesand,therefore,itisnotacasewhichneededtobeallowed.TheHighCourtacceptedthecaseoftheprosecutionanddismissedtheapplication.ThisCourtreferredtothejudgmentinBhajanLalcase(supra)andheldthatthecasefellwithinCategory7.ApexCourtrelyingonCategory7hasheldthatApplicationunderSection482deservedtobeallowedanditquashedtheproceedings.

25.InanothercaseinSectionPriyaVratSinghandothersvs.ShyamJiSahai,2008(8)SCC232,thisCourtreliedonCategory7aslaiddowninSectionStateofHaryanavs.BhajanLal(supra).IntheabovecasetheAllahabadHighCourthaddismissedanApplicationfiledunderSection482Cr.P.C.toquashtheproceedingsunderSection494,Section120-BandSection109IPCandSection3andSection4ofDowryProhibitionAct.AfternoticingthebackgroundfactsandparametersforexerciseofpowerunderSection482Cr.P.C.followingwasstatedinparagraphs8to12:

“8.Further,itispointedoutthattheallegationofallegeddemandfordowrywasmadeforthefirsttimeinDecember1994.Inthecomplaintfiled,theallegationisthatthedowrytorturewasmadesometimein1992.Ithasnotbeenexplainedastowhyformorethantwoyearsnoactionwastaken.

9.Further,itappearsthatinthecomplaintpetitionapartfromthehusband,themotherofthehusband,thesubsequentlymarriedwife,husband’smother’ssister,husband’sbrother-in-lawandSunita’sfatherwereimpleadedasparty.NorolehasbeenspecificallyascribedtoanybodyexceptthehusbandandthattooofadowrydemandinFebruary1993whenthecomplaintwasfiledon6-12-1994i.e.nearlyafter22months.Itistobenotedthatinspiteofserviceofnotice,nonehasappearedonbehalfofRespondent1.

10.TheparametersforexerciseofpowerunderSection482havebeenlaiddownbythisCourtinseveralcases.

11.”19.ThesectiondoesnotconferanynewpowerontheHighCourt.ItonlysavestheinherentpowerwhichtheCourtpossessedbeforetheenactmentSectionoftheCode.Itenvisagesthreecircumstancesunderwhichtheinherentjurisdictionmaybeexercised,namely,(i)togiveeffecttoanorderundertheCode,(ii)topreventabuseoftheprocessofcourt,and

(iii)tootherwisesecuretheendsofjustice.Itisneitherpossiblenordesirabletolaydownanyinflexiblerulewhichwouldgoverntheexerciseofinherentjurisdiction.Nolegislativeenactmentdealingwithprocedurecanprovideforallcasesthatmaypossiblyarise.Courts,therefore,haveinherentpowersapartfromexpressprovisionsoflawwhicharenecessaryforproperdischargeoffunctionsanddutiesimposeduponthembylaw.ThatisthedoctrinewhichfindsexpressioninthesectionwhichmerelyrecognisesandpreservesinherentpowersoftheHighCourts.Allcourts,whethercivilorcriminal,possess,intheabsenceofanyexpressprovision,asinherentintheirconstitution,allsuchpowersasarenecessarytodotherightandtoundoawrongincourseofadministrationofjusticeontheprinciplequandolexaliquidalicuiconcedit,concederevideturidsinequoresipsaessenonpotest(whenthelawgivesapersonanythingitgiveshimthatwithoutwhichitcannotexist).Whileexercisingpowersunderthesection,theCourtdoesnotfunctionasacourtofappealorrevision.Inherentjurisdictionunderthesectionthoughwidehastobeexercisedsparingly,carefullyandwithcautionandonlywhensuchexerciseisjustifiedbythetestsspecificallylaiddowninthesectionitself.Itistobeexercisedexdebitojustitiaetodorealandsubstantialjusticefortheadministrationofwhichalonecourtsexist.Authorityofthecourtexistsforadvancementofjusticeandifanyattemptismadetoabusethatauthoritysoastoproduceinjustice,thecourthaspowertopreventabuse.Itwouldbeanabuseofprocessofthecourttoallowanyactionwhichwouldresultininjusticeandpreventpromotionofjustice.Inexerciseofthepowerscourtwouldbejustifiedtoquashanyproceedingifitfindsthatinitiation/continuanceofitamountstoabuseoftheprocessofcourtorquashingoftheseproceedingswouldotherwiseservetheendsofjustice.

20.Asnotedabove,thepowerspossessedbytheHighCourtunderSection482oftheCodeareverywideandtheveryplenitudeofthepowerrequiresgreatcautioninitsexercise.Courtmustbecarefultoseethatitsdecisioninexerciseofthispowerisbasedonsoundprinciples.Theinherentpowershouldnotbeexercisedtostiflealegitimateprosecution.TheHighCourtbeingthehighestcourtofaStateshouldnormallyrefrainfromgivingaprimafaciedecisioninacasewheretheentirefactsareincompleteandhazy,moresowhentheevidencehasnotbeencollectedandproducedbeforetheCourtandtheissuesinvolved,whetherfactualorlegal,areofmagnitudeandcannotbeseenintheirtrueperspectivewithoutsufficientmaterial.Ofcourse,nohard-and-fastrulecanbelaiddowninregardtocasesinwhichtheHighCourtwillexerciseitsextraordinaryjurisdictionofquashingtheproceedingatanystage.”[SectionSeeJanataDalv.H.S.Chowdhary,SectionRaghubirSaran(Dr.)v.StateofBiharandSectionMinuKumariv.StateofBihar,SCCp.366,paras19-20.]

12.ThepresentcaseappearstobeonewhereCategory7oftheillustrationsgiveninSectionStateofHaryanav.BhajanLalisclearlyapplicable.

15. Inthebackgroundofabovementionedfactsandlegalaspects,nowIconsiderwhetherinthepresentsetoffactsprayermadebyapplicantforquashingofimpugnedchargesheetcouldbeallowedornot.

16. ThefirstissueiswhethertheChiefJudicialMagistratehasappliedhismindbeforetakingcognizanceoftheoffenceunderSectionsection381Cr.P.C.Theorderofcognizancedated1.3.2019isannexedwiththeapplicationasAnnexure6andthesameisquotedbelow.

U;k;ky;eq[;U;kf;deftLVªsV]yfyriqjA

[email protected]

ljdkj cuke vo/ks’kvkfn

/kkjk381SectionI.P.C.

FkkukrkycsgV

01-03-19vktvkjksiie;nhxkjdkxtkriqfylfoHkkxlsizkIrgqvkA

laKkufy;kx;k]vkns’kgqvkfdntZjftLVjgksAvfHk;[email protected];qDrx.kdsfo:n~/klEeutkjhgksAikoyhfnukad030519dksokLrsgkftjheqfYteis’kgksA

eq[;U;kf;deftLVªsV

yfyriqjA

(Underlineissuppliedtoshowwherethespacehasbeenleftandarefilledlater-on.)

Fromaperusaloftheaboveorderitisevidentthatitisatypedproformawhereonlyinformationofcaseno,nameofaccused,section,PoliceStation,dateandnextdateistobefilledbyMagistrate.ThisverypracticehasbeendepreciatedbythecourtinthecaseofAnkitVsStateofU.P.(supra).ThoughnodetailedorderisrequiredtopassatthetimeoftakingcognizancebuttheshortcutadoptedbytheMagistrateisalsonotacceptableandtherefore,inthepresentcase,cognizanceorderispassedwithoutanyapplicationofmindasthesamedoesnotreflectthattheMagistratehasappliedhismindtomaterialsavailableandalsowhetherthematerialsaresufficienttoproceedagainsttheapplicant/accused.

17. ThesecondissueforconsiderationiswhetheronthebasisofmaterialsavailableingredientsofSectionsection381IPCisprimafaciedisclosed.

IhavealreadyenumeratedtheingredientsofSectionsection381IPCinpara10ofthisjudgment.Consideringthematerialsavailable,thereisnomaterialtoshowthataccusedwasemployedinthecaspacityofservantorclerkwiththeOppPartyno2/complainant.Secondly,themachinewasnotinpossessionoftheOppPartyno2.Therefore,theallegedtheftisnotfromthepossessionoftheOpppartyno2.Therefore,inthepresentcaseessentialingredientsofSectionsection381IPCareabsent.InthisbackgrounditisdifficulttoarriveataconclusionthatinthepresentmatterevenprimafaciecaseismadeoutagainsttheapplicantunderSectionsection381IPC.

18. Thelastissueiswhetherinthefactsandcircumstancesofthepresentcase,theCourtcouldquashthechargesheetunderitsinherentpowerundersection482Cr.P.C.

ThereisnodoubtthatthisCourtcouldexerciseitsinherentjurisdictionunderSectionsection482Cr.P.C(I)tomakesuchordersasmaybenecessarytogiveeffecttoanyorderunderthecodeofcriminalProcedureor(ii)topreventabuseoftheprocessofanycourtor(iii)otherwisetosecureendsofjustice.

19. Inthepresentcase,neithertheconcernedMagistratehasappliedmindbeforetakingcognizanceofoffenceandratherpassedanorderintheformofproformaorder,noronthebasisofmaterialsavailable,evenprimafacieingredientsofSectionsection381IPCaredisclosedandtherefore,inmyconsideredopinion,presentcaseissquarelycoveredbycategory(c)ofthejudgmentpassedinthecaseofSectionStateofHaryanaAndOrsvsCh.BhajanLalAndOrs(supra),whichstatesthat-

“(c)wheretheuncontrovertedallegationsmadeintheFIRor’complaintandtheevidencecollectedinsupportofthesamedonotdisclose265thecommissionofanyoffenceandmakeoutacaseagainsttheaccused;

20.Inviewoftheabovediscussiontosecuretheendsofjusticeandtopreventabuseoftheprocessofcourtbelow,presentisafitcasetoexercisetheinherentjurisdictionofthecourtprovidedunderSectionsection482Cr.P.Ctopreventabuseofprocessoflowercourtaswellastosecureendsofjustice.Fordisposalofthepresentcasepara34ofthejudgmentpassedbySupremeCourtinAnandKumarMohattaVsStateofNCTofDelhi2018SCCon-line2447isalsoveryusefulandthesameisquotedhereinafter.

“34.ItisnecessaryheretorememberthewordsofthisCourtinSectionStateofKarnatakav.L.Muniswamyandotherswhichreadasfollows:-

“7……Intheexerciseofthiswholesomepower,theHighCourtisentitledtoquashaproceedingifitcomestotheconclusionthatallowingtheproceedingtocontinuewouldbeanabuseoftheprocessoftheCourtorthattheendsofjusticerequirethattheproceedingoughttobequashed.ThesavingoftheHighCourt’sinherentpowers,bothincivilandcriminalmatters,is61977(2)SCC69914designedtoachieveasalutarypublicpurposewhichisthatacourtproceedingoughtnottobepermittedtodegenerateintoaweaponofharassmentorpersecution.Inacriminalcase,theveiledobjectbehindalameprosecution,theverynatureofthematerialonwhichthestructureoftheprosecutionrestsandthelikewouldjustifytheHighCourtinquashingtheproceedingintheinterestofjustice…..”

21.Whileexercisingsuchpower,theimpugnedchargesheetisquashedandthepresentapplicationisallowed.

MH

DatedApril19,2019

(SaurabhShyamShamshery,J.)

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation