HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 74
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 5029 of 2020
Applicant :- Rahul Singh And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- J.B. Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
This Application, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Applicants, Rahul Singh and Ravi @ Ravish, with a prayer for setting aside Chargesheet No.435/2019, dated 17.9.2019, as well as entire proceeding of Case Crime No.167/2017, under Sectioins-498A/323/34/120B of IPC, read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station, Surajpur, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, and impugned cognizance and summoning order, dated 18.9.2019, passed by II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar.
Learned counsel for applicants firstly argued that the matter may be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court as there is likelihood of compromise in between the parties and, secondly, accused persons had appeared before the Trial court and they are on bail in above case. It is under abuse of process of law. Hence, for avoiding abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice, this Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed, with above prayer.
Learned AGA, representing State of U.P., has vehemently opposed this Application.
Relief prayed for quashing of entire proceeding in Criminal Case No.4242 of 2019 (State vs. Hem Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 167 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 323, 328/34 and 120B of IPC, read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act of Police Station-Surjapur, District-Gautam Buddh Nagar, but the Application has been filed only by two accused persons, i.e., present applicants, Rahul Singh and Ravi @ Ravish. This case crime number, proceeding of which is being prayed to be quashed, is with other co-accused persons too. Hence, same is not possible to be quashed, upon an application, moved by two accused persons only.
Accusation, as is apparent from the statement of victim, Smt. Madhu, is of heinous offence, punishable, under various Sections of IPC, as above. There seems to be no element or likelihood of compromise, if any, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court, with regard to referral of the proceeding by the Courts for mediation to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Hence, this prayer is also not with any susbtance.
First information report was reiteration of statements of victim and other witnesses, recorded, under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is to this fact that there was poisonous substances in the body of the lady, hence, it cannot be said that there is no evidence or abuse of process of law in filing of chargesheet in the case.
This Court, in exercise of inherent power, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not expected to embark upon factual matrix of the case.
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 judgment, in the case of 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 yet another judgment, in the case of 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 the case of 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”.
Regarding prevention of abuse of process of Court, Apex Court, in the case of 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 the case of 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”.
Meaning thereby, exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded as above.
In view of what has been discussed above, this Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., merits dismissal and it stands dismissed accordingly. However, he facts being raised before this Court may be raised before the Trial court at appropriate stage, by moving an appropriate Application, at the time of framing of charge or subsequently, as the law permits, which, if moved, shall be decided by the Trial court, in accordance with the provisions of law.
Order Date :- 6.2.2020