Pradeep @ Pradeep Kumar And Another vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Ram Krishna Gautam, J

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants Pradeep @ Pradeep Kumar and Amar Pal against State of U.P. and Munna Lal with prayer to quash summoning order dated 11.9.2019 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2041 of 2017, Munna Lal Vs. Hari Bhagwan and others, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Ujhani, district Budaun, pending in court of J.M., Budaun.

Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record. Learned counsel for applicants argued that in this very case, Case Crime No. 0333 of 2016 was got lodged at P.S. Ujhani, District Budaun, on 17.5.2016 at 14.45 hours upon report of Munna Lal, Advocate, and this was investigated, wherein final report was submitted. Thereafter protest petition was filed and it was treated as complaint, wherein impugned summoning order has been passed. Whereas provisions of amended section 202(1) was not complied with because accused persons are resident of Delhi and not within the territorial jurisdiction of Court at Budaun. Hence this order was vitiated. Hence this application with above prayer.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the above argument.

From the very perusal of impugned order, it is apparent that an application dated 5.5.2016 u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by Munna Lal with contention that owing to family dispute regarding partition Bhagwan Das Rajak, Hari Bhagwan Das Rajak and Dharmendra resident of Jaipur, who are in-laws of complainant's brother Virendra Pal, entered into a quarrel, wherein threat was extended by those accused and owing to this on 27.2.2016 at about 6.00 P.M. while complainant was on his way to his home from Ujhani by his motorcycle and reached near Santosh Kumari School an Alto Car with registration No. DL 8CNB 0789, which was being driven by Pradeep Kumar and boarded by Amarpal, Dharmendra, Bhagwan Das Rajak and Hari Bhagwan Rajak firstly dashed his motorcycle, then after all those accused persons came out from the car, they did abuse and assaulted him with kicks and fists, danda and iron rod and threatened him with dire consequences. Upon rescue call many persons rushed there then the accused persons ran from the spot. Case Crime No. 333 of 2016 for offences 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 325, 307 I.P.C. was got registered wherein investigation resulted in submission of final report. Protest petition was filed against this final report. It was treated as a complaint case and in this complaint, complainant was examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and his witnesses Bhagwan Singh and Satyadev were examined u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Dr. Saurabh Goyal was also examined as CW1. Thereafter impugned summoning order was passed. The very contention of learned counsel for the applicants that under amended provisions of section 202(1) Cr.P.C. the enquiry was not to be conducted by the Magistrate, is not maintainable. There is an enquiry made by the Magistrate in this proceeding. The impugned summoning order is on the basis of evidence collected in its enquiry made by the Magistrate. The Magistrate at the stage of section 204 Cr.P.C. is not required to make meticulous analysis of evidence. Rather only prima-facie case is to be seen for making summoning and it was very well there.

This court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is not expected to meticulously analyse the facts and evidence as it is matter of trial to be seen during trial.

Saving of inherent power of High Court, as given under Section 482 Cr.P.C, provides that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Meaning thereby this inherent power is with High Court (I) to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any other order under this Code (II) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court (III) or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But 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 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 another subsequent 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 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 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 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.

Accordingly, there remains nothing for any indulgence in this proceeding. The prayer for quashing summoning order as well as proceeding of the aforesaid complaint case is refused and the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within thirty days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants 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 judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

For a period of thirty days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.