3SS ^7.'-^ APPLICANTS Presenf: A.F.R. HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminat Miscellaneous Petition No.99 of 2009 1. Sanjay Pandey, aged about 32 years, S/o Ramanand Pandey, By Occupation Agent 2. Ramanand Pandey aged about 70 years, S/o Da.duram 3. Hiramani Pandey, aged about 65 years, W/o Ramanand Pandey, 4, Anjani Papdey aged about 45 years, S/o Ramanand Pandey 5. Narad Pandey aged about years, S/o Ramanand Pandey, 40 6. Urmila Pandey, aged about 45 years, W/o Sudama Pandey All By Caste Brahmin, R/o Village Devna, Post Patrayali, Thana Shrinagar, Tahsil Surajpur Distt. Sarguja Versus 1. Smt. Reenu Pandey, aged about 25 years, W/o Sanjay Pandey, D/o Tribhuwan Nath Pandey, R/o Village Temri Thana Patna, Distt. Koriya 2. The State of Chhattisgarh, through, Collector, Koriya {Application underSection 482 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} NON-APPLICANT: Mr. Parag Kotecha, counsel for the petitioners. No.2. r. Arvind Singh, counsel for respondent No.l. r. Akhil Mishra, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (29-10-2009) 1 1. Thi5|is a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order takihg cognizance dated 4-9-2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baikunthpur in Criminal Complaint Case No.269/2008 and |the order dated 30-1-2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Koriya f'~~". '^ ll' :'i,.-.,-.».. I g ,v..—s'y i ..^•^" ^. ^,.-/-..^^: 3Sw7s.s-' in ah unregistered revision, whereby the order taking cognizance wasiaffirmed by the revisional Court. 2. Quashment is prayed on the ground that without any prima facie material for taking cognizance against the petitioners, the Court below has taken cognizance against all family members and thereby committed illegality. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the orders impugned and copies of the statements of complainant Ranu Pandey &Tribhuvan Nath Dubey. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that at the tim^ of taking cognizance the Court is required to see the prima facie mat^rial sufficient for taking cognizance and the complainant is required to adduce specific material against the specific accused. Bald! & omnibus statement is not sufficient for taking cognizance against the petitioners and for dragging the persons before the crim|inal Court. Learned counsel further argued that the statement of the complainant is not sufficient for taking cognizance against any of the ipetitioners, because she has not specifically stated anything against any petitioners and bald & omnibus statement is not sufficient for taking cognizance. Learned counsel placed reliance in the Imatter of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another in which the Apex Court has held that in cases of matij'imonial offences, it is duty of Court to encourage genuine settltements of matrimonial disputes and in appropriate cases, proceedings should be quashed in accordance with the compromise of the case. Learned counsel further placed reliance in the matter of Onk|arNath Mishra &0rs. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.2 in which the Apex Court has held that in absence of any evidence of misappropriation of the article, of the bride, the order taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 406 ofthe I.P.C. is viot maintainable but on the ground of cruelty, criminal prodeedings may be continued for the offence punishable under Sectlion 498A of the I.P.C. Learned counsel also placed reliance in the matter of Ran Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr. in whiQh the Apex Court has held that without assigning any reason 1 AIR 2C103 SC 1386 2 2008 AIR SCW 96 3 AIR 2008 SC 1294 •;.3i» S K ^-T^. SrS^ interference against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the I.P.C. is not sustainable. 1 5. Thisiis a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashment of criminal complaint pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baikunthpur. Power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is exceptional in nature and should be used sparingly. While dealing with|exercise of power under Section 482 ofthe Cr.P.C. in the matter of M/s. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and others v. Md. Sharaful Haque and others4 the Apex Court has held thus, rf» "8. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case ofthis nature is the exception and not the rule. The Section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends ofjustice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express.. provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration ofjustice on the principle "quando lex aliqu/d alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest" (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide 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. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court AIR 2Q05 SC 9 iKa^_.., teiW to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto." 6. In the present case, the complainant/respondent No.l has lodged the Ireport on 19-6-2007 and afterwards she has filed the present complaint. Her statement recorded under Section 200 ofthe Cr.P.C. revdals that the petitioners herein are her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sistel'-in-law & brother-in-law and after marriage, her in-laws & their relatives have committed cruelty upon her in conpection with demand of dowry. Meetings amongst the relatives were convened where the accused persons agreed that they will not commit cruelty on the complainant in future, but again they dem&nded dowry and committed cruelty upon the complainant. At the Istage of taking cognizance the Court is required to see and evaluate the evidence in its face value and no meticulous scrutiny is required. The Court is not required to consider the evidence in its evidfentiary value and if the allegations made in the complaint are not 'rebutted it would be sufficient for warranting conviction of the accused and the Court may take cognizance against the accused on the basis of the complaint. If the allegation made in the statement of the complainant is not rebutted and it is admitted in its face value same is sufficient for warranting conviction of the petitioners. 1 7. As h'eld by the Apex Court in the matter of B.S. Joshi (supra), the Court is duty bound to encourage the genuine settlements and the party may take appropriate recourse before the trial Court. This is not |:he case where the parties have entered into agreement, and despite of this, the case is pending before the trial Court. The case of B,S. Joshi (supra) is distinguishable on facts to that of the case in hand. i 8. Thelmatter of Onkar (supra) is applicable in the present case and the material adduced on behalf of the complainant is sufficient for takirog cognizance against the petitioners. As held by the Apex Court h.^S&W^ Soma a'^fiElSjSsfe. & in the matter of Ran Singh (supra) the Court is required to assign reasons for interference against the accused persons. 9. The |order impugned, though brief, reveals that on the basis of the statsment & documents, the Court has taken cognizance against the petifioners and statement of the complainant is sufficient for taking coghizance of the offence punishable under Section 498A read with Sect|ion 34 of the I.P.C. against the petitioners. Both the Courts below have not committed any illegality warranting interference in exercise of the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. lO.I.A.IMo.l thus stands disposed of. Sd/- Sharm! ige