Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak Aggarwal vs Nidhi Bansal on 20 August, 2019
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
-( 1 )- MCRC No. 11725/2018
(Deepak Aggarwal Vs. Nidhi Bansal)
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
(Single Bench)
MISC.CRI.CASE NO. 11725/2018
Deepak Aggarwal ..... Petitioner
Versus
Nidhi Bansal .....Respondent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM
Hon. Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Shri V.K.Bhjaradwaj, learned senior counsel with Ms.
Priyansha Mangal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Narottam Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for Reporting : No
Reserved on : 15.07.2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Passed on 20th August, 2019) Preferring this petition under Section 482/340 read with section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to make complaint under Sections 191, 192, -( 2 )- MCRC No. 11725/2018 (Deepak Aggarwal Vs. Nidhi Bansal) 193, 199, 200 and 209 of IPC against the respondent and prosecute her as per law.
2. The facts in short are that the petitioner and respondent got married on 23.11.2015 at Ludhiana and after marriage dispute arose between respondent and family members of the petitioner. Father and mother of the petitioner died due to the mental torture and harassment made by the respondent. According to petitioner, before marriage the respondent was in relation with one Nitin Mahajan. The respondent also aborted the first child of petitioner. When respondent denied Rs.30 lac which was demanded by the respondent, she made false allegation against the petitioner and FIR was registered, which was challenged before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., but the same was dismissed.
3. The petitioner got divorce decree from respondent vide order dated 24.1.2011. After that, respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court for interim maintenance. The Court allowed the application and vide order dated 24.3.2011 directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.7000/- as interim maintenance. Against the order of interim maintenance, the petitioner filed a review petition before the Family Court, which was dismissed by the Court. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed a criminal revision before the High Court alleging therein that the Family Court -( 3 )- MCRC No. 11725/2018 (Deepak Aggarwal Vs. Nidhi Bansal) passed the impugned order of interim maintenance ex-parte. The High Court disposed of the revision with direction to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the Family Court for cancellation of the order of interim maintenance.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent is a Teacher and is working in Wendy School since 2010. In support of his contention, the petitioner filed certain documents after obtaining the same under RTI Act. But the documents filed by the petitioner has been denied by the respondent by filing false reply. It is also submitted that before working as a Teacher at Wendy School, the respondent had worked at many other schools. According to counsel for the petitioner, due to filing of false statement and forged document by the respondent, the criminal revision filed by the petitioner before the High Court was dismissed. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner relied upon a bunch of decisions rendered by the Apex Court. It is further contended that the respondent deliberately and intentionally committed crime under the aforementioned sections. It is submitted that since the above offence was committed by respondent in judicial proceedings, hence liable to be punished as per law.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as per the settled principle of law this Court is not having jurisdiction to -( 4 )- MCRC No. 11725/2018 (Deepak Aggarwal Vs. Nidhi Bansal) interfere in the matter, hence prayed to reject the petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:-
"482. Saving for inherent power of High Court - 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."
8. The powers of High Court under Section 482 of CrPC are partly administrative and partly judicial. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Muniswami [AIR 1977 SC 1489] held that the section envisages three circumstances in which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, "to give effect to an order under CrPC, to prevent abuse of the process of the court, and to secure the ends of justice."
9. The jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is discretionary. The Court may depend upon the facts of a given case. Court can always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same by exercising its powers under Section 482 of CrPC. It is true that these powers are neither limited nor curtailed by any other provisions of the Code. However, such inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution. -( 5 )- MCRC No. 11725/2018
(Deepak Aggarwal Vs. Nidhi Bansal)
10. In Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Anr. (2012) 8 SCC 460, the Hon. Apex Court has observed as under:-
27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 CrPC but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 CrPC should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
27.2 The court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.
27.3 The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.
27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loathe to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers.
27.5. Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any of the provisions of CrPC or any specific law in force to the very initiation or institution and continuance of such criminal proceedings, such a bar is intended to provide -( 6 )- MCRC No. 11725/2018 (Deepak Aggarwal Vs. Nidhi Bansal) specific protection to an accused.
27.6. The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a person and the right of the complainant or prosecution to investigate and prosecute the offender.
27.7. The process of the Court cannot be permitted to be used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose.
27.8. Where the allegations made and as they appeared from the record and documents annexed therewith to predominantly give rise and constitute a civil wrong with no element of criminality and does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the court may be justified in quashing the charge. Even in such cases, the court would not embark upon the critical analysis of the evidence.
27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice.
27.10.It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon to hold a full-fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence collected by the investigating agencies to find out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction.
27.11.Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence, merely because a civil claim is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal complaint cannot be maintained.
27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or under Section 482, the court -( 7 )- MCRC No. 11725/2018 (Deepak Aggarwal Vs. Nidhi Bansal) cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The court has to consider the record and documents annexed with by the prosecution.
27.13.Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.
27.14.Where the charge-sheet, report under Section 173(2)CrPC, suffers from fundamental legal defects, the Court may be well within its jurisdiction to frame a charge.
27.15.Coupled with any or all of the above, where the court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of CrPC or that interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist.
27.16.These are the principles which individually and preferably cumulatively (one or more) are to be taken into consideration as precepts to exercise of extraordinary and wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code by the High Court. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the Court should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence."
11. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of -( 8 )- MCRC No. 11725/2018 (Deepak Aggarwal Vs. Nidhi Bansal) Orissa and another vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo [(2006) 2 SCC 272] that inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases and the High Courts should not embark upon an inquiry as to reliability of evidence to sustain the allegations, which is the function of the trial Court.
12. In view of the aforesaid annunciation of law, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out for warranting interference. Consequently, this petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) Judge vv VALSALA VASUDEVA N VALSALA VASUDEVAN 2019.08.21 10:44:57 2018.10.26 15:14:29 -07'00'
-07'00'