•^ f-SB; Hon'bte Mr. T.p.SHARM.4- Tt Cr-M.P-No-638 of 2009 \ Igy ^uotci <yd o'H^srs 'lj / vv'f Vs. Stot©of Chhc>tt!5QQrh ortd oth^rs ORDER BE POSTED FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 9/12/2009 Sd,/- T.P, Sharma Judge L_^^_ _ ._. ^' HI6H COURT OF CHH.ATn-Se<4RH AT BIL4.SPUR Cr'-M.P.No.638 nf 2009 PstitiQnsrs (Accused Personsi Ajcy ©uptaaged about 24 years, S/o Shri Amarnath ©uptaR/o infront of Ram Uandir Viiiage Pandatarai Distt.- Kflbirdha"' (C.(?.) Vijay ©uptflaged about 35 years, S/o Shri Amamath bUDta R/o infront of Ram Mandir Viiicge Pandatarai bistt.- Kabirdham (C-<5.) &LErgesh '<9uptQ a§edabout 35 yeGrs/ S/o Shri Radheshyam 6upta Press Agent R/o Vitlage Pandatarai &istt. - Kabirdham (c.e.) Bflciri ^uDtQ o^sd <sbout 40 y$crs, S/o Shri Chandra Prasad 6uota Pan Sinqar Shop R/o &iptapura, Kawardha Distt. - KQbirdh<xm fC.^.^ 5anjoy ^uptc aged about 22 yecrrs, S/o Shri Amarnath 6uota Shiksha Kcr'mi class 3, Sovt.Primary School R/o Villuge B-harari Tah A Disft.-Bilaspur (C.&.) Srtncie€p Soni Q9€d ctbout 20 ye<xrs, S/o Shri Shankar Soni servant in kirana shop R/o &istt.-Kabirdham (C.6.) Village Pandatai-ui P.S.Pnndatarai Versus B®gnnn.dcntS 3. 4. Sta+e of Chhattisgarh Through ; PrinciDal Secretary Horne beoartment Sovt. of Chhattis'ciarh Secretariat D.K.S.Bhawa" Raipur (C.6.) tsirecfor Senera! of PoUce Chhcttisgarh Police Headquarters Raipur (C.6.) 5tcttto?i House Xnchar^e Po!ics St/stion Pandatarai &istt Kcbirdham (C.6.) Shri B.B.Schu Assis+ant -Sub Inspector oind Investiqating Officer of Rtft No.70/2009 Poiice otation Pandataroi Dist!- Kabirdhcm (C.S.) v 2 5. RQ?H£I TiwGri <iQ©d rtbout 24 vs<srs D/o Shri Ratanta! Tiwari and wife of Ajav oupta R/o Supta Mohalla Pandatarai &istr.Ksbirdham (C.S.) 6. S®Gr'€!;tory Arya SQSTIGJ MG"dir Baijna-Hiparo Raipur (C.6.) 492001. (Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) (SB: Hon'bleMr.T.P. Sharmo. J.) Present: Mrl-V/.^.TaiTl(3skQ^. counse! for ths Detitioners. AAr.Qamrui Aziz, Pcnel lawyer for resDondents No.l to 3/State. (DeSwsred cn 9th Dece'Rber, 2009) L This is Q Dstition uncier Section 482 of the Code of CriminQl Procedurs. 1973 (in short lths Cod^^ fo?1 ^uoshinsnt of l4i®F.X.R. rcQ'stersd iri Crims No.70/2009 by Police Statio" Pandatarai, Tahs'! Pandar'iya, &lstr'ict- Knblr'dham Qnd cr'nrti^al pr'ocssdin^s pending before the Ssssions Jud^e, Kabirdhann in Sessions Trla! No.38/09. 2. Qufishr^erit is prQyeci on tha grou^d that ifi abssnce of prin^o. facic QHeQQtion^ r'e^istration of offslnce. ond initiotion of crimiHQl procesdin^s would cinnount to abuse of the E'rocess of the Court. 3. B^i<Ef focts ^ecessary for dlsposc^l according to the plecd'n^s of the petitioners are t'nct petitioner No.l Ajay 6upta got marr'led with respondent No.5 Rama iSupta (prosecutrix of the present case) i" Arya Samai Mandir'. Ralour' on 2.2-2009. Certificcte of the marr'age has been "d "'~" -—--, • t—.p.^.- »... —..<..-.——y. ^—...,.—^,.— issued by Arya Sjmai .AA.andir'. Respo"de"t No.5 is iegally wedded wife of petitioner No.l- After* his "larriage, petitioner No.l has trayeiled with r'csDonde-nt No-5 to diffsrsnt DlQces. M/hcn thcy canne back. then pet'tioner No.l ccme to know thct F.T.S. has been iodged against the petitioners for the offence Dur'ishssbie under SectioRS 341, 342, 365, 366 cnd 376/34 of the India". Pena! Code. The petitior'e.r's have not abducted or iliegally confined or" kidnossed the orosecut.rix. Petit'oner' No.l hcs not co'r""".itted "i rape u.'ith. the pr'osecsjtrix- RegEstnition of F-I-R. and continuonce of crimincl proc-e^diriQs on ths b<3sis of n!lert€c! fotct would <>mount to obuse of the proce^s of the Court- Prosecutrix RO*T*Q Tlwari has Eodged Ifie aforesQ'd F.1.R- a9flinst the petitioners on 10.4.2009 in which she has aileged that the Oetitio?is.?>s hciys co?Tt??iitt£d th*2 sforssaid offences- Thsy haye tcEksn sig"atu?'e over some documsnts ct Raipur" and petitioner No.l hcs committed rcspe uiith her- Offence has been investiga+ed by the police concerned aid after CQrnpletion of in'/estigation, charge she«thas been filed- 4. Z haye heard lesrnsd courtsel for 'Hie Ds^tses CLid Derused the coDi^s of F.1.R., chrtr'oe shset Qiftd other <iocun<srits fil^ci o^ behcslf of liis &etitio^ers. 5- L€Q?°ned counss! for ths Dstltln?isrs ysheme^t!v QFQUsd 't^ot srosscutrix Rama Tiwari is legaliy weeded w'fe of petitloner No.l and she has tra>/e!!ed with the oetitioner No.l in different o'aces. Petitioner No.l white dischar'ging hls war'ita! obligation has main+ained physica! r'eiation ""ith the ther'efors, the SQtTse is not the offencs &u"ishrtble; under Ssctlo?i 376 of ths Zndian Psr'al Cods< Leerried counsgi fu?'1t?erl ar^ued 'Hiat 1tis rsSDonds^ts hcsve dslibsratdv cQ^csalec! 'tts£fc'c'hj??1 of lnwful ?nQrriciQ£. They haye co^ce-ciled certif'CQte of "R^rriage- Lecsmed co'jnsel p!acsd reijrtpce i" the tTlcitt»?' of Kekl Horsnsysii ^hsrds Qnd othsrs v. Mehsry^n Rustsm Irafii ar«d another i<" •••••hich the Apex Court has held thct bw does not taks care of trif!es. Const>'uction of a" access road with might h"ye crtused so?ne inconv®ni^nc&but "ot w^ortgflj! restrotiftt uider' Ssctiorl 399 of the Irsdian psna! Code- AISegatior' contained in conipinint petition wer'e of triy'al na+ure. and therefore, High Court ought to haye e?<ercised its power unde?' Ssction 482 of ths Cods. 6. On the other* hand, !©<xr'nsdcounse! for rgspondents No-1 to 3 opposed ths 'e+it'on a"d argued that respondent No.5 Rama Tiwari has lodged the rsport agoinst tha petitioner's- On th^ basls of her rwport^ the polics hn^ 'nvest'gated "ri'ie nfattsr' and aftsr con'.pietion of inyestlgction, charge sheet has be^n fi'ed aaainst the Dstitioners- 6 SCC 475 fc, ^ ^^^^^^|y || JJ ')!y<^'' '%' ^^y 4- T. Xn CQSS of prGygr of GUGShmsr!t of chsxrQg shsst snd the F.1-P" us^der Ssction 482 of 'H^e Code, ths Dstitionsrs n?''s rsouired to nrlrlks out the e?<GeptionoJ c<t3® for* invoi^inrt e.'^tr'Qordlnary inhsrent jurisd'ct'on. -At the tinne of tGkirl3 co^^izQnce^ the poiics 's r'e^uirsd to see whether the aHeQction ?ncde discloses DriT/n?i fQcis commissio?1 o'f the off^ncs Qnd Gt thft ti*ne of t^Rino con?ii2QL'(ice and fra.t?tinQ of tha chcirQS, the Coyrt 's rsQuir^d to S££thst whether o.il^Qatiogi iifad^ i?^ ths chcifQs shest or co?n5l''i'^t 3f Qdwittsd if! Its fncs yQlue \n its eftirst'ii^ then conyictioin would bs nossibls or not Qncl if cbi^victlofi would be Dossib's th^^ •t^^ Court is undftr obliQation to tcke cognizance and fr'ame the charge, inter' a!ia, if such cony'ction wou'd not be- possible thsn th®order tckin^ cogni^Cince or orde^ frQ'T111?1^ chargs woulci cn^ount to nbuse of the procsss of the Court. 8. This is Q, D^tition u^dsr S€sction 482 of th's Cods fo''* 3ucshm£F!tof cri?ni^'2l proceedin^s pend'ng (sgainst thi£petit3Q"er*s. WhHs d&ftliyi9 with exprcis@ of 'er undsr S€ctlc?^ 482 of ths Cods In thc wstter of M/s. ^Qndu Ph"F^nQ.ceutlcQl WorRs Ltd. Q?*d othe-r's v. Md. Shnr*?fifuE Ho><jus othsrs the Apex Court has hsld thus, "8. Exercise of Dc-wer under Ssctlon 482 of the Code in a case of this naturs is the exception and not 1+ie ruie. The Section does' not confer any new powers on Tne High Court. It o?i!v SQV£S tha inhsrsnt Dower whlch thp Court Qossessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisacies three circumstances under which the inherent jur-isdiction mory be sxercised, "clnflely\ (i) to ^ive %ffsct to on order' undsr ths Code. (ii) to crevent cbuse of the process ot court, and (j!i) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither ^ossibi®r>or dcs^ble to IGV down atiy spflsxibis r'ule whsch would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legisioitive enactment deaiing with procedure can provide for cx!l cas&s that ntoy possibly CF!SS. ("ourts^ therefor*£^ hav^ inherent powers apnrt from express provisions ot law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upo" them by !aw- Thot 's the doctririe which finds expression in the section which mereiy recognizes orid preserves inherent powers of the 1-iigh Courts. Ail courts, wh&thsr ciyll or crimlnnl posssss, in the nbs$?tce of Q'^y exoress Drov!sion..as inherent in their constitution, all such ^ 'AIR 2005 SC 9 ^.'F \ ••,• 'l ^^^^^ '^^iwSs^ ^. power's as are necesscry to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of iustice on 1+ie Drincipte "quando lex aiiquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id s'ne quo res ipsae eese non potesf' (when the taw gives a person onythino it gives him tiiat without which it cdnnot exist). Whiie exercising powers under -Hie section, The court does not funct'on as a court of oppea! or r'eyision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefuiiy and with caution and oniy when such exercis®ss justified by the t^sts spffcificsliy io'd down in the section itselt. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do rea! and substcsritia! justice for the administration of which aione courrs exist. Authority of the court exists for odvancement of justice and if any attempt is mn<!e to cibuse ificit Qtu'ttiorit/ so as to produce injustics^ tiie court has Dower to orevent abuse. It woutd be an abuse of process of me court to ailow any action which would r'esult in injustice a"d preyent promotion of justice. In exercise of ttie oowers court wouid be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it ""'ounts to dbuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings wouid otherwise serve the ends of justice. VVhen no offence is disciosed by the compiaint, the court may examine the question of fact- When a comp'sint is sought to be quashed, it is permissibie to iook into the materiols to assessi what the compiainant hos aiieged and whether a"y offence is made out e"en if the c!legatio"s are accepted in toto." 9. I" the present case, petitioner' No.l has fi!ed n'arr'iage certificate which shows that respondent No-5 has married with him in Arya Samaj .Mandi!*, Raipur- F.I-R. 'odged by respondent No.5 reyeals that the pr'esent peti+ior'ers have kidnapped and abducted her 'md took her to Raipur' wher'e they hays obtained siQfiatur% oyer some docun^nts. Shs hos not st<2ted onvwhere that she hos rnQrTied w'th setitioner* No-i Gnc! Detitionsr ^o.l is her husbfflid, inter' a!ia, she has specifically statsd i" the F.I.R- omd statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code that the petitioner's have RidnfXDDed. abducted cund Dstitioner No.l hcs cor?tm!tted rc"3©with her. Unless the factum of !awfu! n^Qrr'QQs of Detitio?1£.?' No.l wth respop.deT No.5 is proved, at this stage, it is difficult to hold that pespondent N".5 is !ega!!y wedded wife of petitioner No.l. ^l; -^^fsgs7Ssi^yK-i^- •^SS^S&.iSiSSgSiS::.-.-fS- B^- 10.1" the present case, it is pertinent to note that the parties are residents of P&idatarai, District Kabirdham for away from Raipur a"d marriage certificate reveols that petitioner" No.l and ''espondei'it No.5 haye solemnized fflarri"9e in -Arya Samoj AAandir, Raipur. Unless circumstance is explained, th's circumstance itse!f is ttgair'.st the peti+ioners and suppor+s the c^zse of the Dfosecutio". If th^ allsoation fflQd®tn the ch&pQs sheet 's ad""tted in !ts face yaluein its entirety, then same wou!d be sufficient for conyiction of the "stitioner's for the aforesa'd offences. 11.1" these cir'cun'stances, the peti+ioners haye utter'y failed to ir'ake out the exceptiona! coss for quashment. Cor'sequently, the petition is liabte to be dismissed cnd is accordingiy dismissed. Sd/- ^^Sharma Judge