Allahabad High Court
Ramji Tiwari And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 March, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 90
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1385 of 2021
Applicant :- Ramji Tiwari And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Pandey,Devottam Pandey
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.
Applicants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of case no. 516 of 2020 (State vs. Ramji Tiwari), arising out of case crime no. 10 of 2020, under Section 323, 354, 354Kha, 504 I.P.C., pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, District - Ballia as well as charge-sheet no. 81 of 2020 dated 15.6.2020.
As per the prosecution case, the present applicants had assaulted the daughter of the informant with an intention to outrage her modesty and while the informant resisted he had been thrashed by the accused applicants.
After due investigation, the investigating officer has submitted charge-sheet dated 15.6.2020 arraigning both the applicants as accused under Section 323, 354, 354Kha, 504 I.P.C. On the basis of the charge-shet, summoning order dated 29.6.2020 has been passed by the trial court against both the accused.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the investigating officer, without collecting credible evidence and without making proper investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that no case under Section 354Kha I.P.C. is made out as there was no injury on the body of the victim.
Applicants have raised disputed question of facts with respect to the incident and submitted that no offence under Section 323, 354, 354Kha, 504 I.P.C. is made out against them and the prosecution case initiated against them is with mala fide intention for the purpose of causing harassment.
In exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is not expected to analyse 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.
Regarding prevention of abuse of process of Court, The Apex Court in Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana Kumar, (1990) Cr LJ 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494 has propounded that "To prevent abuse of the process of the Court, High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482 could quash the proceedings but there would be justification for interference only when the complaint did not disclose any offence or was frivolous vexatious or oppressive" as well as in State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr LJ 1005: AIR 1989 SC 1, Apex Court propounded "In exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 High Court would not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not.
In the case of Hamida v. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474, Hon'ble Apex Court has propounded that "Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 at an interlocutory stage which after filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed procedure, or to delay the trial which enable to win over the witness or may disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately resulting in miscarriage of Justice". In another subsequent Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781, the Apex Court has propounded "Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 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.
In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6) SC 588 (2010) 6 SCALE 767: 2010 Cr. LJ 3844 has propounded that "While exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable apprehension of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge/Court.
In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the 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 plenitude 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 the recent judgment the Apex Court in Mohd. Allauddin Khan vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2019 (6) SCC 107 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 statement 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 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 applicant has 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.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the settled law on the subject, I do not find any good ground to quash the criminal case no. 516 of 2020 (State vs. Ramji Tiwari) as well as the charge-sheet dated 15.6.2020 or to interfere with the matter in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.3.2021
nd
