Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Chandra And Another vs State Of Up And Another on 18 September, 2019
Author: Ram Krishna Gautam
Bench: Ram Krishna Gautam
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32634 of 2019 Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra And Another Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brajesh Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
This Application, under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (In short 'Cr.P.C.) has been filed, by the applicants, Ramesh Chandra and Smt. Ramwati, with a prayer for quashing of the summoning order, dated 3.10.2018, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha, as well as order, dated 10.5.2019, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amroha, and a further prayer for quashing of entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 730 of 2018 (Sushama vs. Mahendra singh and others), under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Amroha.
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that both the applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant and they have been summoned for offence, punishable, under Section 498-A, whereas similar accusation was also made against sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the complainant, who were also summoned, but in a proceeding, filed by them, proceeding, against them has been stayed. Applicants have no concern, but both the courts failed to appreciate facts placed before them. Hence, this proceeding, with above prayer.
Learned AGA opposed this proceeding.
From very perusal of the complaint, statements, recorded, under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. and other materials, it is apparent that the complainant was married on 16.1.2012, with Mahendra, Son of Ramesh Chandra and Smt. Ramwati. Husband, Mahendra, and his family members were not satisfied with dowry given in the marriage. They were causing mental and physical cruelty with regard to demand of additional dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs. She was ousted from her nuptial house, but, subsequently, taken back by her husband and his relatives on 1.10.2014. She delivered a female child on 11.9.2017, which furiated them. A specific occurrence of 11.3.2018 of 5.00 PM has been said on oath, which was said to have been committed by Mahendra, husband, father-in-law, Ramesh Chandra and mother-in-law, Smt. Ramwati (both present applicants, herein), with Surendra and Chaman @ Laxmi in which demand of dowry, cruelty with regard to it, abuse and threat were given by those accused persons. Thenafter, this complaint was filed and this version was reiterated by the complainant, in her statement, recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C and her two witnesses, CW-1, Devendra Kumar and CW-2, Premwati, in their statements, recorded, under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Hence, on the basis of those evidences, accused persons were summoned for offence, punishable, under Section 498-A of IPC and this summoning was with full reasons and was based on evidence on record.
Revisional court, in exercise of its power of revision, conferred under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., is never expected to analyze factual aspect of the matter and as such Revisional court passed the impugned order well within its jurisdiction confirming the summoning order.
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.
In view of what has been discussed above, this proceeding, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., lacks merits and as such, this Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., stands dismissed.
However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall 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 judgement 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 30 days from today, 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.
Order Date :- 18.9.2019 bgs/