Allahabad High Court
Nanhakoo Pal vs State Of U.P. on 13 November, 2014
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 45675 of 2014
Applicant :- Nanhakoo Pal
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- P.C. Patel
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.
2. This application under section 482 Cr.PC has been filed seeking a direction to the court below to stay the fine of Rs. 25,000/- which was awarded by order dated 22.7.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi in Case No. 586 of2010 (State Vs. Sunil Kumar Pal and others).
3. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in a routine manner, but it is for limited purposes, namely, to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Time and again, Apex Court and various High Courts, including this one, have reminded when exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be justified, which cannot be placed in straight jacket formula, but one thing is very clear that it should not preampt a trial and cannot be used in a routine manner so as to cut short the entire process of trial before the Courts below. If from a bare perusal of first information report or complaint, it is evident that it does not disclose any offence at all or it is frivolous, collusive or oppressive from the face of it, the Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but it should be exercised sparingly. This will not include as to whether prosecution is likely to establish its case or not, whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, accusation would not be sustained, or the other circumstances, which would not justify exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I need not go into various aspects in detail but it would be suffice to refer a few recent authorities dealing all these matters in detail, namely, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Popular Muthiah Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police (2006) 7 SCC 296, Hamida vs. Rashid @ Rasheed and Ors. (2008) 1 SCC 474, Dr. Monica Kumar and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 781, M.N. Ojha and Ors. Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav and Anr. (2009) 9 SCC 682, State of A.P. vs. Gourishetty Mahesh and Ors. JT 2010 (6) SC 588 and Iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola Incorporated and Ors. 2011 (1) SCC 74.
4. In the present case against the conviction of punishment order of dated 22.7.2014 passed by Trial Court, the appellant has, admittedly, preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Bhadohi. This is said to be admitted on 8.8.2014 while the applicant has been granted bail, the lower appellate court has not found it appropriate to stay find and that is how this application has been filed.
5. The Lower Appellate Court in its wisdom has declined to pass interim order in respect of payment of fine and it cannot be said that exfacie judicial exercise undertaking by the court below is illegal or otherwise in any manner amounts to abuse of the process of law or results in failure of justice.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I do not find any ground to issue any direction to the relief sought for by the learned counsel for the applicant.
7. The application is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.11.2014
SKS
