Allahabad High Court
Mohd Chaman And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 July, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 21
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10450 of 2021
Applicant :- Mohd Chaman And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shams Uz Zaman
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is arising out of proceeding u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in Complain Case No.336 of 2019, u/s 498A, 323 IPC, P.S. Mahila Thana, District-Amroha, in which learned Civil Judge, Junior Division/J.M., Amroha has passed summoning order dated 7.11.2019, after considering the contents of complaint and supporting evidence, which is under challenged before this Court.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that no offence against applicant is disclosed and present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has referred certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Learned A.G.A. has contended that it is a disputed question of fact with respect to conduct of the present applicants, who have been summoned under Section 498A and 323 IPC and same can be effectively adjudicate upon after trial and at this stage their innocence cannot be ascertained, which requires evidence to proof.
Present matter involves disputed questions of fact regarding demand of dowry and harassment and torture to the complainant. It is also alleged that once he had tried to set the complainant ablaze by pouring kerosene oil on her. In support of the complainant, complainant was examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and also adduced supporting evidence u/s 202 Cr.P.C. namely, Dilshad (CW-1) and Maqsood (CW-2), who have supported the case regarding allegation made by complainant against her husband for torture and harassment for demand of dowry and the incident of pouring kerosene oil over the complainant. In exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is not expected to analyze the factual evidence which is to be placed before the trial court. The power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very specific and wide to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code. No provision of this Code is deemed to limit or effect such inherent power of the High Court.
In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observation in Paragraph 61 which is quoted herein below :-
?61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or an FIR or a complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plentitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline en-grafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.?
In a recent judgment passed on 15.04.2019 in Criminal Appeal No.675 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1151 of 2018, Mohd. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar and others, 2019 (6) SCC 107, the Apex Court has held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidences of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. because where there are contradictions or the inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses, is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidences and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial, when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. The same view has also been reiterated in judgment dated 31.07.2019 passed by Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1082 of 2019, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10762 of 2018, Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another.
The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. In absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Supreme Court which might justify the quashing of complaint or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. I do not see any abuse of the court's process either. The summoning court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C., as the case may be, through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the averments made in the present application, prayer for quashing the summoning order dated 7.11.2019 of the aforementioned case is refused.
This application is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 19.7.2021
Manish Himwan
