Kishan Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 7 Others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 31.10.2020, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Hathras in Criminal Revision No. 98 of 2018 (Kishan Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) as well as order dated 28.08.2018, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras in Criminal Case No. 3312 of 2017 (Kishan Singh vs. Hariom Jurail and others).

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has filed a complaint against private respondents, which makes out a prima facie case but the complaint was dismissed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras under Section 203 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 28.08.2018. The petitioner has preferred a revision against that order but the revision was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 31.10.2020. Learned counsel submitted that there are allegations against the private respondents that they have come at the house of petitioner and committed robbery of jewelry and cash of Rs. 2,17,000/-. This version was supported by complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. have also supported that version but despite that the complaint was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the impugned orders, being against facts and law, are liable to be set aside.

Per contra, it has been argued by learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondents have argued that essentially the matter pertains to matrimonial dispute. The son of petitioner was married with respondent no.2 but there was matrimonial dispute that a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C and one case under Domestic Violence Act as well as one case under Section 498A IPC were filed by the respondent no.4 against son of petitioner and his family members and that the impugned complaint has been filed as a counterblast of those cases with mala fide intention just to exert pressure upon private respondents.

It is well settled that in supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over subordinate Courts, the scope of judicial review is very limited and narrow. It is not to correct the errors in the orders of the court below but to remove manifest and patent errors of law and jurisdiction without acting as an appellate authority. This power involves a duty on the High Court to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. But this power does not vest the High Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes.

For interference under Article 227, the finding of facts recorded by the Authority should be found to be perverse or patently erroneous and de hors the factual and legal position on record. (See: Nibaran Chandra Bag Vs. Mahendra Nath Ghughu, AIR 1963 SC 1895; Rukmanand Bairoliya Vs. the State of Bihar & ors., AIR 1971 SC 746; Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha & ors., AIR 1980 SC 1896; Laxmikant R. Bhojwani Vs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Singh Pardeshi, (1995) 6 SCC 576; Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Pravinbhai Jasbhai Patel & ors., (1997) 7 SCC 300; M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sub-Judicial Magistrate & ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749; and Virendra Kashinath Ravat & ors. Vs. Vinayak N. Joshi & ors. (1999) 1 SCC 47).

In Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329, the Court said that power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court. The above authority has been cited and followed in Kokkanda B. Poondacha and others Vs. K.D. Ganapathi and another AIR 2011 SC 1353 and Bandaru Satyanarayana Vs. Imandi Anasuya (2011) 12 SCC 650.

In Abdul Razak (D) through Lrs. & others Vs. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle and others (2010) 2 SCC 432, Court reminded that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227, High Courts should not act as if they are exercising an appellate jurisdiction.

In T.G.N. Kumar Vs. State of Kerala and others (2011) 2 SCC 772, the Court said that power of superintendence conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is both administrative and judicial, but such power is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority.

It is apparent from the above stated pronouncement that in supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over subordinate Courts, the scope of judicial review is very limited and narrow and even the errors of law cannot be corrected in exercise of such powers. The power enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution is of judicial superintendence and it cannot be used to upset conclusions of fact, however, erroneous, unless such conclusions are so perverse or unreasonable that no court could have ever reached than.

At this stage, it will also be pertinent to mention that if after considering statement of complainant and of witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C., Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceedings, he has to dismiss the complaint. In the instant case, it is apparent that respondent no.4 is daughter-in-law of the petitioner and that other petitioners are her parents and family members and that there was matrimonial dispute between respondent no.4 and her husband, who is son of petitioner. The petitioner has filed the complaint of robbery against her daughter-in-law and her family members and the allegations made by the petitioner are thoroughly improbable. Further, no documentary evidence was shown in respect of cash of Rs. 2,17,000/- and jewellery, which have been allegedly robbed in the said incident. In view of these attending facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the Court below has committed any material illegality or perversity by dismissing the complaint of petitioner under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The Revisional Court has also considered the entire facts in correct perspective and the revision was dismissed vide impugned order dated 31.10.2020. No patent error of law or of jurisdiction could be shown in the impugned orders and that no such case is made out so as to require any interference by this Court in exercise of power under article 227 of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.