Bhallu @ Hari Narayan And Others vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Ram Krishna Gautam, J

Supplementary affidavit, filed, today, by learned counsel for applicants, is taken on record.

This Application, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Applicants, Bhallu @ Hari Narayan and three others, with a prayer for setting aside impugned summoning order, dated 27.4.2019, passed by court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi, at Gyanpur, in Criminal Complaint Case No.960 of 2016, Rakesh Kumar Yadav, vs. Bhallu @ Hari Narayan and others, under Sections-323, 504, 506, 452 and 427 of IPC, Police Station-Gyanpur at Bhadohi.

Learned counsel for applicants argued that initially a Non-Cognizable Report was filed. Thereafter, an Application, under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., was filed for a direction for investigation of above NCR case. It was treated as a complaint case and therein, a summoning order was passed, which was challenged in revision before the Sessions Judge and it was allowed. The matter was remanded back. Subsequently, after hearing, summoning order has been passed by the Magistrate, again, for offences, punishable, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 and 427 of IPC, which is in misuse of process of law. Accused persons are uncles and family members of the complainant. There is a dispute regarding demarcation of land in between them and this false case was got lodged. There is material contradiction in the statement made and the contentions in Non-Cognizable Report. Hence, for avoiding abuse of process of law and for ensuring 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.

Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through materials on record, it is apparent that an occurrence occurred for which a Non-Cognizable Report was instantly got lodged. It was very well known. Subsequently, it was said that the same was not recorded as per statements, made before the Police, then, application, under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. was moved for a direction for investigation. Magistrate, in a case of Non-Cognizable Report, even after submission of chargesheet, has to take recourse of complaint case because the same chargesheet, which is for non-cognizable offence, is to be treated as a complaint case. Hence, this was said to be malicious prosecution and, accordingly, a prayer was made for setting aside it.

Statements, made in application, moved under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., was having recital of facts, as was said, and reiterated in the statement, recorded, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., which stood corroborated, by statements of witnesses, in the enquiry, made by the Magistrate, under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and as such impugned summoning order was passed on the basis of evidence, collected by the Magistrate, in his enquiry. Hence, at that juncture of summoning, under Section 204 of Cr.P.C., Magistrate, was not expected to make analytic analysis of evidences, rather, it is to be seen that as to whether there is existence of a prima facie case or not on the basis of enquiry and complaint, which, in present case, was very well there. Hence, impugned summoning order was passed, in accordance with the provisions of law.

Hence, under all above facts and circumstances, this Court, in exercise of inherent power, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not expected to make meticulous analysis of factual aspects because the same is a question, to be gone into, during course of trial, by the Trial court.

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.