\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Cr. M.P. No. 563 of 2007 Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, Judge PETITIONER : Mohammad Nurul Rizavan Versus RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh O R D E R POST FOR 13 -3-2008 \ Sdl- i T P. Sharmaf > L. ~ k; Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Cr.M.P. No. 563 of 2007 Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, Judge PETITIONER Mohammad Nurul Rizavan S/o M.H. Reharman, aged 33 years, R/o Tarabahar, Bilaspur, Police Station Tarabahar, District Bilaspur (CG) Versus RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Tarabahar, District Bilaspur, (CG) PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. This petition is filed for quashing the First Information Report of Crime No. 167/2007 registered at Police Station Tarabahar, Bilaspur for the offences punishable under sections 376, 496 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that a written complaint was filed by complainant — Smt. Laxmi alias Kuni against the petitioner that she came in contact with the petitioner in the year 1997 and developed love affair with him. However, one day she was called by the petitioner to his house on the pretext of some work and when she went there, the petitioner after Present: Shri V.C. Ottalwar counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ravindra Agrawal PL for the respondent/State. O R D E R (Passed on i 3 March, 2008) closing door committed sexual intercourse with her on a false assurance of marriage. However, when the petitioner refused to marry her, the complaint was made in that regard. FIR was registered and after investigation the charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under sections 376, 496 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur. 3. Registration of the FIR is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that on the basis of the material collected by the prosecution, the offence alleged against him is not made out. According to the petitioner, FIR has been lodged belatedly i.e. after a long span of 1O years without any explanation therefor. His further stand is that the complainant is major and was a consenting party to the act alleged against him. 4. Counsel for the parties are heard and the charge sheet as well as the FIR are perused. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that complainant Laxmi alias Kuni being a woman of 34 years of age belonging to a Hindu family should understand the pros and cons of the act complained of by her. She should also understand that marriage of a Hindu girl with a non Hindu boy cannot be possible. lt is further submitted that the material collected by the‘prosecution against the petitioner is not sufficient for framing the charge for the offence alleged against the petitioner and continuance of the trial based on the alleged FIR and the charge sheet would only amount to abuse of process of Iaw. 6. On the other hand, registration of the FIR and the investigation is supported by the respondent. It is submitted that there is a strong prima facie material against the petitioner for registering the FIR and filing of the charge sheet against him. it is submitted that at the stage of framing of charge no t eticulous scrutiny of the material is required. m 7. Counsel for the petitioner has piaced reliance on the following decisions: (i) In the matter of Anthony alias Bakthavatsalu Vs. State 1960 Cri.L.J. Madras 927 (Vol. 61) In the matter of Jayanti’ Rani Panda Vs. State of West Bengal 1984 Cri. L.j. 1535 (iii) In the matter of Uday Vs. State of Karnataka 2003 AIR SCW 1035 SC (iv) In the matter of Deelip Singh alias Dilip Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 2004 AIR .SCW 6479 (v) In the matter of Yedla Shrinivas Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2007 (1) SCC (Cri.) 557 (vi) In the matter of Pradeep Kumar Verma Vs. State of Bihar 2007 Cri.L.J. 4333 SC ln the light of the aforesaid decisions it is argued by the counsel for the petitioners that it is clear from the records that prima facie no case for the offences punishable under sections 376, 496 and 120—B read with Section 34 of the IPC, is made out against the applicant. (ii) 8. This is a petition for quashing of the criminal prosecution launched against the appiicant and no charge has been framed against him. In these circumstances the applicant is having the alternative remedy to get the matter adjudicated in the trial Court at the time of hearing on charge in accordance with the provisions of sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. In the matter of Hamida Vs. Rashid alias Rasheed and others reported in (2008) 1 SCC 474 the Apex Court has held as under: (“It is well—established principle that inherent power conferred on the High Courts under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has to be exercised sparingly With circumspection and in rare cases and that too to correct patent illegalities or when some miscarriage ofjustice is done. The content and scope of power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. were examined in considerable detail in Madhu Limaye V. State of Maharashtra and it was held as under: (SCC p. 555, para 8) The following principles may be stated in relation to the exercise of the inherent power of the High Court: (1) that the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party; (2) that it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any court or othen/vise to secure the ends ofjustice; (3) that it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code. In State V. Navjot Sandhu after a review of large number of earlier decisions, it was held as under: (SCC p. 657, para 29) “29.....The inherent power is to be used only in cases where there is an abuse of the process of the Court or where interference is absolutely necessary for securing the ends of justice. The inherent power must be exercised very sparingly as cases which require interference would be few and far between. The most common case where inherent jurisdiction is generally exercised is where criminal proceedings are required to be quashed because they are initiated illegally, vexatiously or without jurisdiction. Most of the cases set out hereinabove fall in this category. It must be remembered that the inherent power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code or any other enactment for redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. This power should not be exercised against an express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Criminal Procedure Code. This power cannot be exercised as against an express bar in some other enactment” qA‘ Before parting with the case, we feel constrained to observe that in spite of repeated pronouncements of this Courtthat inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in rare cases and that too when miscarriage ofjustice is l»: . done, the High Court entertained the petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C, the ultimate result whereof was that the order of bail granted in favour of the accused for an offence under Sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC enured to their benefit even after the offence has been converted into one under Section 304 IPC and also subsequently when charge had been framed against them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The accused did not remain in custody even for a sing/e day nor did they approach the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate or Sessions Judge for being granted bail under Section 304 or 302 IPC, yet they got the privilege of bail under the aforesaid offences by virtue of the order passed by the High Court. The dockets of the High Court are full and there is a long pendency of murder appeals in the High Coun‘ from which this case has arisen. Ends of justice would be better sen/ed if valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at an interlocutory stage which are often filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed procedure, as is the case here, or to delay the trial which will enable the accused to win over the witnesses by money or muscle power or they may become disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately resulting in miscarriage ofjusticef) 9. in the light of the above proposition, l am of the opinion that no interference is called for in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 10. Consequently, the petition is without any substance and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed f/b M Sdl- p ' \ T. P. Sharmal r 3 Judge