Manmohan Singh & Ors. vs State of Jammu and Kashmir

Inherent powers arising out of Section 561A Criminal Procedure Code have been invoked by the petitioner so as to get the proceedings,

pertaining to the offence punishable under Section 498A Ranbir Penal Code pending before the Munsif, Judicial Magistrate 1st class R.S. Pura

quashed.

Investigation report in respect of FIR No. 280 of 1995 Police Station R.S. Pura came to be filed in the Magistrate's court at R.S. Pura on

23.12.1995. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the matter and issued process for securing attendence of the accused, who were alleged to

have subjected the informant, Smt. Sapinder Kour wife of accused Manmohan Singh to cruelty within the meaning of the term assigned to it u/s

498A R.P.C.

The record reveals that it was at the bidding of the informant that the trial of the case was shifted from the court of Judicial Magistrate (Munsif)

R.S. Pura, to the court of Judicial Magistrate (Munsif) at Bishnah. The order of shifting the venue of the trial of the case came to be assailed in a

revision motion before the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu.

During the pendency of the revision petition this application involving inherent powers to quash the proceedings came to be filed. Delayed

lodging of the report of information delay in conclusion of the proceedings before the Magistrate and involvement of all the members of the

accused's family in the case are projected as grounds to give the Magisterial order, whereby cognizance of the offence has been taken, the label of

being source of injustice amounting to abuse of the process of the court.

The delay in lodging of the report of information with the police about the commission of the"" offence, is the matter that has to be considered in

its proper perspective by the court which tries the case. Section 561A Cr. PC. will not take into its sweep the consideration of the effects of

delayed reporting of the crime. It is for the trial court to see whether the reasons tendered for the delayed lodging of the report can be accepted

and whether the explanation tendered there about will neutralise the fall out of delayed reporting. Inherent powers cannot be readily invoked to

perform that duty/obligation which is cast upon the trial court while deciding a criminal matter nor can be it said in an off hand manner that the

delayed lodging of the FIR of the occurrence can in any manner amount to abuse of the process of' the court or that delayed lodging of the report

is itself sufficient, without any explanation being considered, for quashing of the proceedings on the plea that the ends of justice require so.

The other ground taken that the proceedings have moved at snail's pace in the Magistrate's court is itself not to be viewed in isolation to the

circumstances of the case. The proceedings got stalled at one stage by filing of the transfer application and subsequently by filing of the revision

petition. Even if it is held that circumstances indicate that there has been unnecessarily delay in disposing of the proceeding, yet on that count the

proceedings cannot be quashed in view of the fact that a married woman has attributed cruel conduct that is punishable under Section 498A

R.P.C.

It appears, that all the members of the accused's family have been inculpated in the case, yet that itself is no ground to quash the proceedings as

it will be again open to the accused to convince the trial court of their innocence and non involvement in the commission of the alleged offence.

The age of the parentsinlaw of the complainant is again no ground under section 561A Cr. P.C. to quash the proceedings nor can it be said that

their advanced age negatives the aquisition as far as it is attributed to them. I am constrained to say that the attempt of the accused in the case

appears to protract the proceedings and delay its disposal by invoking the jurisdiction which is not at all available on the facts and circumstances of

the case.

In the circumstances and facts of the case, it is not possible to subcribe to the view that the report of investigation even if taken at its face value

and accepted in its entirity, does not prima facie constitute the offence or make out a case against the accused/petitioners; nor can it be said that

the allegations made in the report of the investigation are so absurd or inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever

reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is difficult in the totality of the circumstances to

countenance the assertion that the proceeding is manisfestly attended with malafide or that the proceedings have been maliciously instituted with the

ulterior motive to wreak vengeance. The tests as prescribed in AIR1992 SC 604, for the exercise of powers under Section 506A Cr. P.C to

quash the proceedings when applied to the present case, leaves no scope for passing an order of quashing the proceedings.

Without prejudice to the merits of the case one can safely say that no ground whatsoever is made out by the accused petitioner to set at naught

the proceedings that have been initiated against them for the alleged act of subjecting the informant to cruelty in terms of Section 498A R.P.C.

For what has been stated here above. The petition is misconceived and it is dismissed.

Record be sent back to the court of Judicial Magistrate (Munsif) Bishnah, where the parties shall appear for further directions on 24.8.1998.