9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne on 4.11.1999 and the other on the next day, i.e., 5.11.1999. The first FIR was lodged by Meenaxi Agrawal, (for short, Meenaxi ) inter alia, alleging that Manoj Narain Agrawal (for short, Manoj ) along with forty others raided their farm house and attacked Shashi Agrawal (for short, Shashi ) and Meenaxi (Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 in Criminal Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6061-6062 of 2008) as also staff members thereof as a result whereof one R.K. Yadav, an employee suffered grievous injuries. FIR No. 960/99 in relation to the said purported incident was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 427, and 506, of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC ) at the Kichha Police Station. The accused were allegedly arrested on the spot by the local police. Another FIR was, however, lodged by Manoj (Appellant in Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5419 of 2008) alleging that D.S. Sirohi, Manager of Parag Farm, Kichha uttered filthy language over his mobile calling names to mother, sister and also threatened to kill him and when he reached there, some guards of the Farm, namely, Hans Pal, Munna Lal, Dharmender, et ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court with a prayer that the investigation in Crime Case No. 960A/99 be directed to be carried out by CBCID. Indisputably, a direction was issued by the State of U.P that Crime No. 960A/99 be investigated by CBCID pursuant whereto the investigation was taken over by CBCID. On or about 11.5.2000, the investigation in Crime Case No. 960A/99 was transferred from CBCID to local police by the State of U.P. Shashi thereafter filed a Writ Petition No. 2996 of 2000 in the High Court with a prayer for direction to set aside the order dated 11.5.2000 passed by the State of U.P. Manoj also filed a Writ Petition No. 3848 of 2000 questioning the order dated 6.4.2000 whereby the investigation was transferred by the State Government from local police to CBCID. On or about 4.7.2000, the High Court passed an interim order in Writ Petition No. 2996 of 2006 staying the arrest of the petitioners. All the connected matters with Writ Petition No. 310 of 2000 were disposed of by the High Court on or about 13.9.2000 directing the investigating agency to carry out the investigation fairly and honestly and not to take any coercive steps against the parties. 7. A Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioners being ladies, particularly Petitioner No. 1 being an old lady, I am convinced that both of them deserve some protection from this Court even though I have declined to interfere in the trial in exercise of this Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 3. Therefore, even while dismissing the petition, I direct the learned Trial Court as under: (1) To dispose of the bail applications of both the petitioners on the same day these are filed. Having gone through the papers of this case, I am quite convinced that valid grounds exist for granting bail to the petitioners. (2) It is upto petitioner No. 1 to make an application for exemption from personal appearance in the trial court in terms of Section 205 of Cr. P.C. if such an application is made by the petitioner No. 1 even without appearing in the Trial Court on any date hereafter, the learned Trial Court is directed to consider this application and pass appropriate orders thereupon. While disposing of the said application, the learned Trial Court shall be influenced by the fact that the petitioner No. 1 is old lady and she is keeping quite unwell. After granting exemption from personal appearance, of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ening development of circumstances. To allay of Mr. Suri's aforesaid apprehension, I just have to refer to this Court's order dated 22nd July, 2008 passed in Criminal Misc. Applications No. 620 of 2006. 15. Against the said order dated 22.7.2008 and order dated 11.8.2008, Criminal Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6061-62 of 2008 and Criminal Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 6136-37 have been filed. 16. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Manoj and Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand would contend: i. The High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgments insofar as it failed to take into consideration that in the applications filed by Shashi and Meenaxi, no prayer for grant of bail having been made, the High Court could not have issued such a direction. ii. The jurisdiction to exempt the accused from personal appearance before the Court being within the domain of the learned Magistrate, the directions issued by the High Court must be held to be wholly illegal. 17. Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned Senior Couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of the matter, as noticed hereinbefore, clearly show that the investigation in the connected matter being Crime No. 960A of 1999 run from one extreme end to the other. Final reports were prepared twice. However, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID on the second final report so prepared sought to obtain the legal opinion of the public prosecutor. Such a course adopted may be irregular but it is not denied or disputed that a vital aspect of the matter of the investigation had not been carried out. It is not the case of the appellants, i.e., Shashi and Meenaxi that the opinion given by the public prosecutor was incorrect. We have noticed hereinbefore that even otherwise the learned Magistrate has granted such permission. 20. In Kamlapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal 1979CriLJ679 , this Court held: 50. Section 169 and 170 do not talk of the submission of any report by the police to the Magistrate, although they do state what the police has to do short of such submission when it finds at the conclusion of the investigation (1) that there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate (Section 169) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons entrusted with different stages of such administration, it would ordinarily be desirable that the police should inform the Court and seek formal permission to make further investigation when fresh facts come to light. 21 ...In our view, notwithstanding that a Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence upon a police report submitted under Section 173 of the 1898 Code, the right of the police to further investigate was not exhausted and the police could exercise such right as often as necessary when fresh information came to light. Where the police desired to make a further investigation, the police could express their regard and respect for the Court by seeking its formal permission to make further investigation. 22. As in the present case, occasions may arise when a second investigation started independently of the first may disclose a wide range of offences including those covered by the first investigation. Where the report of the second investigation is submitted to a Magistrate other than the Magistrate who has already taken cognizance of the first case, it is up to the prosecuting agency or the accused concerned to take necessary action by moving the appropriate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of the process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law including procedural law and not otherwise. Further, inherent powers are in the nature of extraordinary powers to be used sparingly for achieving the object mentioned in Section 482 of the Code in cases where there is no express provision empowering the High Court to achieve the said object. It is well neigh settled that inherent power is not to be invoked in respect of any matter covered by specific provisions of the Code or if its exercise would infringe any specific provision of the Code. In the present case, the High Court overlooked the procedural law which empowered the convicted accused to prefer statutory appeal against conviction of the offence. High Court has intervened at an uncalled for stage and soft- pedaled the course of justice at a very crucial stage of the trial. In Hamida v. Rashid alias Rasheed and Ors. (2008) 1 SCC 474, this Court held: 7. It is well established principle that inherent power conferred on the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in rare cases and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stating: 9. In view of the above said subsequent events and the conduct of the appellant, it would be an abuse of the process of the court if the criminal proceedings from which this appeal arises is allowed to continue. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion to do complete justice, we should while dismissing this appeal also quash proceedings arising from the Criminal Case No. Cr. No. 224/2003 registered in Police Station, Bilaspur, (Distt. Rampur) filed under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondents herein. 29. Contention of Mr. Sushil Kumar is that while filing a charge sheet, the Investigating Officer did not follow the directions given by this Court in its order dated 7.9.2001 whereby and whereunder the Investigating Agency was directed to consider the report dated 29.11.1999 submitted by Mr. Naresh Pal. It is again not a matter to take which requires serious consideration at this stage. It does not appear that any such contention was raised before the High Court, the effect thereof must be considered by the courts at an appropriate stage. It is also difficu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
