Rajeev Kumar And Others vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Ram Krishna Gautam, J

The applicants, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the entire proceedings as well as impugned summoning order dated 25.09.2019, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun in Complaint Case No. 811 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Madhaugarh, District Jalaun, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun, District Jalaun.

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

Learned counsel for applicants argued that it is a counter blast case, filed under misuse of process of law because for an occurrence of 11.04.2016, which occurred at about 15 P.M., report was got lodged on 03.05.2016 for offences punishable under Sections 294, 452, 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. upon report of Rajiv Kumar against Ramsiya and Jitendra. Hence, this application with above prayer.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application.

From the very perusal of first information report, as above, it is apparent that some occurrence took place on 11.04.2016 at 15 P.M., for which report was got lodged. The occurrence of present complaint case is of same date 11.04.2016, but is of 9 P.M. i.e. previous occurrence may be a motive for this subsequent occurrence or it may be a motive for false accusation, but either way it is a question of fact to be be seen by Magistrate.

From the perusal of complaint, it is apparent that it was said that on 11.04.2016 at about 9 P.M., while complainant was on his way for having meal. He was abused by Rajiv Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar. It was protested, then he went to his home, where Rajiv Kumar, Sanjiv Kumar, Rohit and Gaurav Kumar, armed with axe and lathi-danda came there. They did criminal tress-pass and assaulted. On hue and cry, Manoj, Munshi and many others rushed there. Accused persons ran from spot, while extending threat of dire consequences and this assault was owing to previous enmity in between. Complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C., where his statement is fully intact. The same is the reiteration by PW-1 Manoj and PW-2 Anek Singh in their statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Impugned summoning order by application of judicial mind was passed for offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. against accused. It was on the basis of evidence collected by Magistrate in its inquiry.

Moreso, 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.

The prayer for quashing summoning order as well as proceeding of the aforesaid criminal case is refused.

However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within four weeks 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 four weeks 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.

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.