HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. – 79
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 32686 of 2019
Applicant :- Dinesh Chandra And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 SectionCr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 4.7.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2471 of 2018, under Section 498A, Section323 I.P.C., Police Station Dataganj, District Budaun, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Budaun.
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that it was a case filed in counterblast of Criminal Complaint No. 43 of 2017 (Rampal Vs. Prempal and others) Police Station Ujhani, District Budaun, wherein Prempal, Smt. Rajrani, Dinesh, Ashish, Yogesh, Harish Chandra, Smt. Rekha and Ramdeen have been summoned for offence punishable under Section 323 and Section406 of I.P.C., against which a proceeding before this Court has been filed wherein the criminal proceeding has been stayed.
No cruelty with regard to dowry was ever made by accused persons. It was a false and malicious prosecution wherein entire family members have been falsely implicated. Hence, the application with above prayer.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the application.
Having heard learned counsels for both sides and gone through the summoning order, it is apparent that a complaint was filed by Smt. Urvashi wife of Dinesh Chandra before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun, as Complaint No. 294 of 2017 against her husband Dinesh Chandra, Smt. Chameli (Mother-in-law), Rajpal (Father-in-law) and Km. Savita (Sister-in-law) for offence punishable under Sections 323, Section498A, Section504, Section506 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, with contention that complainant was married with Dinesh Chandra on 4.5.2011 wherein Rs. 4 lacs were spent and dowry was given as per the capacity but accused persons being husband and his family members, were no satisfied with it and since the first entry in the nuptial house, cruelty with regard to demand of additional dowry of one motorcycle and a golden chain was made, which was narrated to mother of complainant but under persuasion, she was again sent to her nuptial house but this cruelty continued. In between, she was blessed with two child Gauri and Gaurav. There occurred some panchayat in between but on 22.1.2017 accused persons did assault with regard to demand of dowry and when family members of complainant rushed at the house of complainant, in front of them, she was beaten and tortured. Matter was reported but of no avail. She was medically examined. An application was sent before the Superintendent of Police, that too, was of no avail, hence, this complaint was filed. Complainant, herself, under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and two witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., Harish Chandra and Dinesh Chandra were examined, who reiterated the contention of complainant, thenafter Magistrate, vide order dated 4.7.2019 passed summoning order for offence punishable under Section 498A and 323 I.P.C.
Apex Court in “SectionState 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 Sectionsection 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 SectionHamida 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 SectionMonica 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 SectionPopular 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”.
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 Sectionsection 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 SectionState 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”.
This Court under exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not expected to analyze the factual evidence, which is a subject of trial Court but under above facts and circumstance and legal proposition, this proceeding merits its dismissal.
Hence, the application is rejected.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days and no more from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall 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. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. Till then no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants.
Order Date :- 18.9.2019