Rajpal Singh and Another vs State of M.P.

Hon''ble Shri Justice Sujoy Paul

In this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.4.12 passed by the Court below whereby the application preferred by the petitioners u/s 91 of Cr.P.C. r/w Section 65 of the Evidence Act is rejected. Shri N.C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, has raised twofold contentions as under :

(i) The petitioners have filed the entire set of documents and evidence in this petition which shows that there is no material against the petitioners, and therefore, the proceedings before the Court below amounts to abuse of process of law, hence, the said proceedings be quashed.

(ii) The Court below has erred in rejecting the application aforesaid by the impugned order.

Shri N.C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, has relied various judgments of Supreme Court and this Court to show that this Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside the impugned order and the criminal proceedings/private complaint registered by the Court below.

Per contra, Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant, and Smt. Sangeeta Pachauri, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State, supported the order passed by the Court below.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

It is noticed that the petitioners earlier filed M.Cr.C. No. 7332/08 before this Court praying for setting aside the proceedings before the Court below. This Court by order dated 6.3.10 has dismissed the M.Cr.C. and it is made clear that the matter is pending before the Court below where witnesses have been examined and all the points will be decided after evidence is recorded in the said trial. In nutshell, interference was declined. The petitioners filed another M.Cr.C. No. 2444/11 before this Court. This Court directed for assigning the trial of the matter to some other Judge and accordingly the matter was transferred. Thus, it is clear that this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 7332/08 opined that no case is made out for interfering at this stage and the petitioners were relegated to face the trial. Thus, for the same reasons this petition cannot be entertained. If there is no evidence against the petitioners, the Court below will appreciate it and there is no occasion for this Court to adjudicate the merits of the matter in this writ petition.

So far the impugned order dated 25.4.12 is concerned, the Court below has rejected the same by assigning a specific reason that petitioners earlier also preferred similar applications claiming same relief. Those applications were rejected by the Court below. Thus, another application of same nature was not entertained by the Court below. Apart from this, the Court below has opined that it is not exercising its powers to appreciate the defence of the petitioners as if it is a civil suit. The petitioners in the present writ petition has nowhere doubted the correctness of the said finding. In other words, the petitioners have not pleaded that earlier similar applications were not preferred and not rejected by the Court below. The burden was on the shoulders of the petitioners to show whether earlier similar applications were filed or not and whether the finding of the Court below aforesaid is perverse or not. The petitioners have not chosen to attack the said finding of the Court below. Thus, there is no perversity pointed out by the petitioners. This Court is not sitting as an appellate Court. The scope of jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited. Another view is possible, is not a ground for interference in these proceedings. Unless a palpable procedural irregularity is pointed out or it is demonstrated that the impugned order is either without jurisdiction or perverse, no interference is warranted in these proceedings. So far the judgments cited by Shri Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, are concerned, the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court cannot be doubted that in exceptional cases this Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction. In the present matter, petitioners have to make out a strong case which warrants interference. The petitioners have completely failed to demonstrate the same and have made herculean efforts to persuade the Court to examine the merits of the matter. I am afraid that this is not the stage where writ Court can enter into that arena to interfere on merits in the matter in writ jurisdiction. Petition is bereft of merits and substance and is hereby dismissed.