IN THE HIGH COUR T OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.807 of 2011 Uma Shankar Sharma, son of Dina Nath Sharma, resident of Sumitra Sadan, Jagat Narayan Road, P.S.-Kadamkuan, district-Patna. ………..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Kumkum Devi, wife of Rajesh Kumar, resident of village-Lohanda, P.S.-Sikandra, District-Jamui. ….Opposite parties. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Shakil Ahmed Khan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shivendra Prasad, Adv. For the State : Mr. Binod Kumar No.3, A.P.P. ----------- 4 10.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioner invoked instant extraordinary power envisaged under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by challenging the order dated 26.11.2010 passed by Md. Salim, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamui in Complaint Case No. 460(c) of 2010 whereby and where under the petitioner along with others have been summoned to face trial for an offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323/34, 379 of the I.P.C. It happens to be a family feud amongst spouses wherein petitioner including others has also been named in complaint petition whereupon they have been summoned on the allegation that on the alleged date and time, they after making house trespass, assaulted complainant by fists and slaps and took away 2 her belongings. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he happens to be practicing advocate at Patna High Court as well as he is not the family member rather he happens to be brother-in-law of husband of complainant and on account thereof, been implicated in this case without having any sort of specific allegation. As such, submission is that save and except the members of family, implication of others appears to be highly improbable as well as unbelievable and so complicity of petitioner appears to be nothing rather as a result of vengeance. Further, submitted that as the aforesaid theme is to be taken into consideration only under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., therefore by passing the privilege prescribed under Section 397 and onward (revisional jurisdiction), the same has been filed. As such it has been submitted that taking into account the guidelines prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal Case reported in AIR 1992 SC, 604, it happens to be fit case wherein after invoking the provision of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., prosecution of petitioner be quashed. Side by side it has also been submitted that the complainant had earlier filed Sikandra P.S. Case No.80 of 2010 against husband and others 3 (admittedly petitioner not named therein) for the same cause, therefore the learned Lower Court should have adopted the procedure prescribed under Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. and in the aforesaid background, instead of issuing summon against the petitioner, should have stayed the proceeding till submission of charge sheet. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that it happens to be a preliminary order based upon the materials placed before the learned Lower Court under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and unless and until there happens to be procedural defect during continuation thereof or the learned lower court, transgressed the limit then and then only, the privilege of 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be taken into consideration otherwise the order impugned happens to be revisable order and for that the petitioner should have filed revision instead of instant petition. Although there happens to be presence of O.P. No.2, in the list but none turns up. Before coming to the legal complicity, I would like to refer the salient features which are evident from the relevant annexures filed on behalf of the petitioner. From complaint petition no.460(c) of 2010 (the relevant one) which was filed before the learned lower 4 court on 12.4.2010, the date of occurrence has been shown from 04.07.2009 to 09.04.2010 wherein the name of petitioner figures along with others. Sikandra P.S. Case No.80 of 2010 has also been filed by aforesaid complainant, Kumkum Devi on 15.4.2010 (the date on which written complaint was received by the police station) though it happens to be dated 12.04.2010 as is evident from the signature of S.P. wherein the date of occurrence has been shown as 09.04.2010, the relevant date, on which as per written report there happens to be absence of petitioner while as per complaint petition there happens to be presence of petitioner. So from these two annexures, Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 respectively, there happens to be inconsistency amongst the version of complainant herself with regard to presence of petitioner during course of occurrence as alleged. In the aforesaid background, however the matter under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be taken up, for that I would like to refer the principal enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court after analyzing the relevant law on this score as is reported in 2011 Criminal Law Journal, page 2584 wherein at para-13 it has been laid down as such:- 5 “this court, in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of the High Court’s power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. though while has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in the section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing in justice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute”. After scrutinizing the factual aspect as discussed above in light of the principal enunciated by Hon’ble Apex Court on the point of invoking inherent jurisdiction prescribed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., I feel that there is need to apply application of inherent power and as such, the proceeding against petitioner is quashed consequent thereupon petition is allowed. PN (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)