IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 3 of 2009 Reserved on: 23.3.2010 Date of decision: 01.04.2010 Mansha Ram Vashist & Ors. … Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioners: Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. V.K. Ahuja, J.: This order shall dispose of the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of FIR No. 21/2008 dated 24.8.2008, registered at Police Station Pooh, District Kinnaur, against the petitioners. Notice of the petition was issued to the State as well as to the complainant. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners were that there is no sufficient evidence as against the 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 petitioners except some allegations as against the other members of the family including the husband, namely, petitioner No. 3 Anil Vashist. It was alleged that the allegations made are general in nature have not been substantiated by the evidence and accordingly, this Court should exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction and should quash the proceedings pending before the learned trial Court on the basis of the final report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. It was also submitted that the learned trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case since no part of the occurrence had arisen within District Kinnaur. It was also submitted that two of the sisters of petitioner No. 3, namely, petitioners No. 4 and 5 were married subsequently and have not been living with the complainant and, therefore, their presence at the spot was not there that they could harass the complainant. During the course of arguments I had suggested to the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the jurisdiction of this Court is limited under Section 482 Cr.P.C., who has to see only to the question that there must be some assertions made against the petitioners. The question as to whether a prima facie case is made out or not, is to be considered by the learned trial Court at the time of framing of charge. The learned trial Court can be asked to take up the matter at the early date, but he was insisting that the matter be decided by this Court by exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Before I answer to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it will be necessary to refer to the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments. He has relied upon the decision in Ramesh and others Vs. State of T.N., (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 507, wherein 3 referring to the facts of the case it was observed by their Lordships that subjection of a woman to cruelty by her husband or his relatives would cease as soon as she leaves the matrimonial home. It was further held that starting point of limitation would be last act of cruelty under Section 498-A. Reliance was also placed upon the decision in Sunder Babu & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2009(5) Scale -1. The observations made in Para-9 are relevant and are being reproduced below:- “The powers possessed by the High Court under Sec. 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plentitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage.” Reliance was placed upon the decision in Sunil Kumar Vs. Escorts Yamaha Motors Ltd. and others, (1999) 8 Supreme Court Cases 468, wherein the case was under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and on the facts of the case, it was held that the High Court was still within its jurisdiction to quash the FIR as amounting to abuse of the process of Court. 4 In some of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners an observation has been made that these powers should be used sparingly. I may make reference to some of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The decision in State of T.N. Vs. Thirukkural Perumal, (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 449, wherein it was held that High Court’s power to quash FIR and criminal proceedings, should be exercised sparingly keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in various decisions. It was held that the High Court was not justified in evaluating the genuineness and reliability of allegations made in the FIR or complaint on the basis of evidence collected during the investigation. Reliance was placed upon the decision in State of A.P. Vs. Aravapally Venkanna & Anr., AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1863, wherein it was held that inherent powers under Section 482 should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. No hard and fast rules can be laid down for quashing of proceedings or its stage. It was also observed that it is not necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of case to find out whether case would end in conviction or acquittal. A perusal of the decision in Smt. Sujata Mukherjee Vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2465, shows that complaint reveals continuing offence wherein on some occasions all accused had taken part in one local area and on other occasion, only husband had taken part in another local area where complaint was lodged. It was held that Clause© of Section 178 was attracted. Magistrate of local area where complaint is lodged has territorial jurisdiction to proceed against all. 5 Reliance was placed upon the decision in Neelu Chopra and another Vs. Bharti, (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 184. In that case, the main allegations were against the husband who had died and despite service complainant neither appeared nor engaged counsel to represent her. In view of these facts, it was held that the complainant was liable to be quashed. A perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant shows that she made allegation that she was mentally tortured by her husband and his parents, namely, petitioners No. 1 and 2. In the FIR registered as FIR No. 21/2008 dated 24.8.2008, there are allegations against the sister-in-law of the complainant also. The assertions made were in regard to the harassment done earlier within Police Station Pooh, District Kinnaur and the challan has been filed under Sections 498-A, 506 and 34 I.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur, against all the accused persons. In my view, the close scrutiny of the evidence is not necessary to see if prima facie case is made out or not for framing of charge against the petitioners and under which Sections and against which all the petitioners. It is not for this Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to see if the evidence is sufficient or not for framing of charge or as to whether the judgment will result in conviction or acquittal. It is for the Court framing the charge to consider as to whether there is prima facie some evidence or not for framing of charge. For the purposes of exercising this powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the requirement is that there should be some evidence to hold that the petitioners have not been summoned wrongly. In case, there are some allegations as against the petitioners from the statements of the complainant and others, it cannot be said that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6 should be exercised by this Court and it should quash the proceedings. The evidence has to be seen by the learned trial Court while framing the charge as to whether it is sufficient for framing of charge or not. But for the purpose of Section 482 Cr.P.C., to my mind, in case, there are some allegations as against the petitioners, the proceedings cannot be quashed as was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioners, which is dismissed accordingly. However, the learned trial Court shall be entitled to assess the evidence independently and form its opinion at the time of framing of charge in regard to all the pleas that may be raised before it including sufficiency in evidence and question of jurisdiction etc. The petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, all the pending Cr. Misc. Petitions, if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( V.K. Ahuja ), April 01, 2010 Judge (BSS)