HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?A.F.R. Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37372 of 2019 Applicant :- [ENTITY] And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- [ENTITY] Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble [ENTITY],J.
1. This application under [SECTION] [ACT] has been filed by applicants [ENTITY], son of [ENTITY] Yadav, [ENTITY], son of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], son of [ENTITY], against [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] with prayer for quashing entire proceedings of [CASE NUMBER], under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT], P.S. Punchh, district Jhansi, pending in court of Special Judge (D.A.A. Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi, as well as summoning order dated 2.8.2019 passed in above mentioned complaint case.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the records.
3. Learned counsel for applicants argued that a complaint was made against fair price shop run by complainant- O.P. No. 2, wherein Sub Divisional Magistrate suspended fair price shop of O.P. No. 2. Though, subsequently it was revived and owing to above enmity this false accusation was got lodged against applicants, which was with no truth and learned Trial Judge had summoned applicants for offences, as above. It was mere counter blast by complainant. Hence misuse of process of court. Application be allowed and prayed relief be granted.
4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the application.
5. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through impugned order as well as material placed on record, it is apparent that a complaint was filed by [ENTITY] before court of Special Judge (D.A.A. Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi, as [CASE NUMBER] against [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], for offences punishable u/[SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT], P.S. Punchh, District Jhansi, with this contention that complainant [ENTITY] is a fair price shop dealer at village Khilli. [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] are bullies of society. They have created terror there at, but no one dare to complain against them. They very often lodge complaint against fair price shop dealer, which were found to be false. On 8.8.2017 at 1.30 P.M. when complainant was busy with his business at his fair price shop, those accused [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] came there. They did criminal trespass in the shop and asked for two bags of rice and 50 liters of Kerosene oil. This demand could not be fulfilled without ration card and entry of it in the register. They did assault with complainant and abused with derogative language. They abused him by the name of his caste and extended threat of dire consequences and robbed Rs.10,000/- with other Rs.1000/- lying at counter. Persons of [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] etc. came there and intervened then the accused persons ran from the spot while extending threat of dire consequences. Matter was tried to be lodged at police station, but they compelled the complainant to compromise and ultimately it was reported to the S.S.P., Jhansi, but was of no avail. Then this complaint was filed, wherein statement of complainant u/[SECTION] [ACT] and of his witnesses [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were recorded u/[SECTION] [ACT] The trial court after hearing learned counsel for complainant passed impugned summoning order, wherein applicants [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were summoned to face trial for offences punishable u/[SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT] vide order dated 2.8.2019. The statement of complainant recorded u/[SECTION] [ACT] is in full reiteration with contention of complaint. The same is with corroboration by statements recorded u/[SECTION] [ACT] and from very perusal of those statements, there was prima-facie sufficient evidence to pass summoning order, as above. Accordingly, impugned summoning order has been passed. Previous complaint against fair price shop dealer may be a motive for either side, but this court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction u/[SECTION] [ACT] is not to analyse meticulously the evidence placed on record. Rather that is jurisdiction and domain of trial court.
6. Saving of inherent power of High Court, as given under [SECTION] [ACT], 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 [PRECEDENT] has propounded that "While exercising jurisdiction under [SECTION] 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 [PRECEDENT], 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] 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 [PRECEDENT], the Apex Court has propounded "Inherent jurisdiction under [SECTION] 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 [PRECEDENT] 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".
7. Regarding prevention of abuse of process of Court, Apex Court in [PRECEDENT] has propounded "To prevent abuse of the process of the Court, High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under [SECTION] 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 [PRECEDENT], Apex Court propounded "In exercising jurisdiction under [SECTION] High Court would not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not".
8. Meaning thereby, exercise of inherent jurisdiction under [SECTION] [ACT] is within the limits, propounded as above.
9. Hence, under above facts and circumstances, there is no ground for this application.
10. Accordingly, the application is rejected.
11. However, in case the applicants surrender before before the court concerned within 30 days from today and apply for bail, it will decide their bail application in wake of the law laid down by this Court in the Full Bench decision of Amrawati and another Vs. [ENTITY], 2005 Cri.L.J 755 affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. [ENTITY] (2009) 4 SCC 437.
12. For a period of 30 days from today, which shall not be extended further in any case, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants, in the above mentioned case.
Order Date :- 19.10.2019 Pcl