Jai Prakash Maurya vs The State Of U.P And Anr.
2018 Latest Caselaw 593 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 10
 
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 2666 of 2012
 
Applicant :- Jai Prakash Maurya
 
Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Anr.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- M.S Khan
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Anil Kr. Maurya
 

 
Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.

Matter is taken up in the revised list.

None present on behalf of the respondent no.2.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the record.

By means of the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicant/Jai Prakash Maurya has prayed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1049 of2012 "State vs. Jai Prakash Maurya" arising out of Case Crime No.75 of 2012 under Section 379, 411 I.P.C. relating to Police Station-Kakori, District-Lucknow, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Lucknow as well as charge sheet No.71 of 2012 dated 10.04.2012 submitted by the Investigating Officer in the aforesaid case.

Undisputed facts of the present case are that in the village situated at Mandauli, Tehsil-Malihabad, District-Lucknow, there is a land recorded as Gata Nos.95 and 96 in the revenue record, belong to the Gaon Sabha on which 40 trees were standing.

By the resolution dated 11.03.2012, in an open meeting, Gaon Sabha took a decision to cut the trees standing on the land and sell them in order to increase the revenue of the Gaon Sabha.

As per the above said decision, the applicant was authorized to cut the same and after selling the same, he deposited a cash amounting to Rs.10,000/- on 24.05.2012 in the account of Gram Panchayat, Mandauli in Bank of India.

On 17.03.2012, opposite party no.2/Lekhpal of Gaon Sabha lodged an First Information Report stating that the applicant cut down the 40 trees standing on the land bearing Gata Nos.95 and 96, belong to the Gaon Sabha.

Accordingly, a Criminal Case No.1049 of2012 "State vs. Jai Prakash Maurya" arising out of Case Crime No.75 of 2012 under Section 379, 411 I.P.C. has been registered at Police Station-Kakori, District-Lucknow and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer vide Charge Sheet No.71 of 2012 dated 10.04.2012.

However, on 24.05.2012, opposite party no.2 given an application to the Investigating Officer stating that applicant has not committed any theft as he cut down the trees with the permission of Gram Panchayat, Mandauli and sold the same. The amount so received was deposited in the account of Gaon Sabha in Bank of India.

In view of the above said factual background, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the F.I.R. as well as charge sheet.

So, the core question is to be considered that while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, prayer as made by the applicant for quashing the F.I.R. and charge sheet can be granted.

To decide the said controversy, it will be appropriate to consider the inherent power exercised by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Section 482 Cr.P.C. envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised :

(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 of justice.

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 of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid 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 to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice.

In the case of CBI vs. A. Ravishankar Prasad, (2009) 6 SCC 351, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under :-

"17. Undoubtedly, the High Court possesses inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These inherent powers of the High Court are meant to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.

19. This Court time and again has observed that the extraordinary power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. The Court would be justified in exercising the power when it is imperative to exercise the power in order to prevent injustice. In order to understand the nature and scope of power under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure it has become necessary to recapitulate the ratio of the decided cases.

20. Reference to the following cases would reveal that the Courts have consistently taken the view that they must use the court's extraordinary power only to prevent injustice and secure the ends of justice. We have largely inherited the provisions of inherent powers from the English jurisprudence, therefore the principles decided by the English courts would be of relevance for us. It is generally agreed that the Crown Court has inherent power to protect its process from abuse. The English courts have also used inherent power to achieve the same objective."

In the case of Devendra vs. State of U.P., (2009) 7 SCC 495, Hon'ble the Apex Court while analyzing the power by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has held that the High Court ordinarily would exercise its jurisdiction Under Section 482 of the Code if the allegations made in the First Information Report, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, do not make out any offence.

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai BhimSinh Bhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and anothers (2017) 9 SCC 641 held the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., shall be exercised in the following circumstances :-

"15 The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions :

(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;

(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;

(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

Careful analysis of all these judgments clearly reveals that the exercise of inherent powers would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The object of incorporating inherent powers in the Code is to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure ends of justice.

The High Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when the prima facie, the case is not made out against the accused.

Reverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not indispute rather admitted the fact that by resolution dated 11.03.2012, decision was taken by the Gaon Sabha to cut and sell the 40 trees standing on the land in dispute. The applicant was authorized to cut and sell the 40 trees and accordingly, he cut down the same and after selling, he deposited the amount so received in the account of Gram Panchayat, Mandauli in Bank of India.

Further, F.I.R. was lodged by opposite party no.2 and Criminal Case No.1049 of2012 "State vs. Jai Prakash Maurya" arising out of Case Crime No.75 of 2012 under Section 379, 411 I.P.C. relating to Police Station-Kakori, District-Lucknow has been initiated. Later on, complainant himself has filed an affidavit stating that applicant has not committed any theft and he cut down the trees and sold the same with the permission of Gram Panchayat, Mandauli.

Thus, in view of the above said facts, once the complainant is not ready to support the allegation made in the F.I.R. against the applicant, then the continuance of the proceedings is thus nothing but an empty formality. As such, Section 482 Cr.P.C., in such circumstances, be justifiably invoked by this Court to prevent abuse of the process of law and thereby preventing a wasteful exercise by the courts below.

For the foregoing reasons, petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the proceedings of Criminal Case No.1049 of2012 "State vs. Jai Prakash Maurya" arising out of Case Crime No.75 of 2012 under Section 379, 411 I.P.C. relating to Police Station-Kakori, District-Lucknow, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Lucknow and charge sheet No.71 of 2012 dated 10.04.2012 submitted by the Investigating Officer are quashed.

No order as to cots.

Order Date :- 17.5.2018

Mahesh