9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. A three-Judge Bench in STATE OF KARNATAKA VERSUS M. DEVENDRAPPA AND ORS [ 2002 (1) TMI 1340 - SUPREME COURT ], had the occasion to consider the ambit of Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure By analysing the scope of Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court laid down that 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 further held that Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. In the Criminal Revision filed against the said order of the Session Judge, this Court did not interfere with the rejection of an application Under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, however, observed that the complainant has remedy to file appropriate application. The complainant thereafter had filed Complaint No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellant : S.K. Verma, Rajan Kumar Chaurasia, Divyansh Rai and Sandeep Singh, Advs. For the Respondents : Garvesh Kabra, Surjeet Singh, Anubhav T. Mishra, Lagnesh Mishra and V.N. Raghupathy, Advs. JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. This appeal has been filed challenging the order of the High Court dated 21.02.2018 by which the application Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the Appellants Accused to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1 of 2017 has been rejected. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, this appeal has been filed. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noted to decide this appeal are: (i) The Appellants Accused and the Respondent No. 2 complainant belongs to same family and are neighbours. The father of the Accused Anwarul Haq has filed O.S. No. 744/2015 against the complainant in the court of Civil judge (Junior Division) with regard to partition of properties which suit is still pending. Suit between the parties led to several altercations among the parties. (ii) On 19.07.2016, a quarrel took between the parties. The police went on the spot of incident on 19.07.2016 itself and initiated proceedings Under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edy by way of filing an appropriate application before the concerned Court as per provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. (vii) The application having already sent to the National Human Rights Commission, On the instruction of National Human Rights Commission, the Superintendent of Police directed the complaint to be enquired by letter dated 07.11.2016 addressed to the C.O.(City), Jaunpur to enquire the complaint. The C.O. (City), Jaunpur conducted the enquiry, recorded the statements of various persons including the daughters of complainant Firdaus Bano and Gulishtan Bano as well as the Accused and submitted the report on 11.12.2016 opining that allegations labelled by the complainant have not been proved in the enquiry. (viii) The complainant thereafter filed a complaint Case No. 1 of 2017 dated 04.10.2017 repeating the same allegations against the Appellants and other Accused which were made in his application Under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. (ix) The Learned Sessions Judge by order dated 19.12.2017 summoned the Appellants Under Section 323, 353, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code and Section 7/8 POSCO Act. The Appellant filed an application Under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in exercise of jurisdiction Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure shall not examine the question as to whether the allegations made against the Appellant in the complaint are true or false nor High Court will assess the evidence at this stage. 8. A Counter Affidavit has also been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh bringing on record the application filed by complainant Under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure dated 29.08.2016 as well as the enquiry report dated 11.12.2016 and submitted to Superintendent of Police, Jaupur as Annexure-CA/2. 9. We have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Before we enter into facts of the present case and submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, it is necessary to look into scope and ambit of Inherent Jurisdiction which is exercised by the High Court Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court had occasion to consider the scope and jurisdiction of Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 suppl. (1) SCC 335, had elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Section 482 Code of Cri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Accused. (6) Where the is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the Accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 11. This Court in Vineet Kumar and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2017) 13 SCC 369, had considered the jurisdiction of High Court Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. In the above case also, the Additional Civil Judicial Magistrate had summoned the Accused for offence Under Section 452, 376, and 323 Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Revision against the said order was dismissed by the District Judge. 12. This Court time and again has examined the scope of jurisdiction of the High Court Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and lai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. The following was laid down in para 6: (SCC p. 94) 6. ... 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 ipsa 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 b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This Court referred to the judgment in Bhajan Lal's case and held that the case fell within Category 7. The Apex Court relying on Category 7 has held that the application Under Section 482 deserved to be allowed and it quashed the proceedings. 16. After considering the earlier several judgments of this Court including the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan lal (supra), in Vineet Kumar (supra), this Court laid down following in paragraph 41: 41. Inherent power given to the High Court Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories as illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or harassment. When there are materials to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon'ble Commission and found that the applicant filed complaint dated 29.08.2016 of the same charges Under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure before the Hon'ble Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Session Judge, Court No. 1, Jaunpur in which the Hon'ble Court of Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Session Judge, Court No. 1, Jaunpur, as per its endorsement order dated 14.10.2016 has stated that in the entire facts and circumstances of the said case, sufficient grounds to register the case are not available. Statements of other witnesses recorded during enquiry and nearby people were interrogated whereupon eye witnesses stated the fact of the dispute between applicant Sajjad Qureshi and opposite party Anwar Ali over the drain and denying the allegations levelled by the applicant in his application, fact of opposite party Ahmed Ali and Liyakat Ali sons of Anwar doing dirty/indecent act/deed or manhandling whatsoever with the daughters of applicant has not come to light. During enquiry, applicant failed to submit oral/documentary evidence whatsoever. Other allegations levelled by the applicant have not been proved from the enquiry. Peace and tranquilli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d incident as alleged in the complaint. Non believing on one part of the incident as alleged in the complaint by the Court clearly throws a shadow of doubt on the earlier part of the incident as alleged. 22. Learned session judge in the impugned judgment has not taken note of the Civil Suit pending between the parties. 23. In the facts of present case, we are fully satisfied that present is a case where criminal proceedings have been initiated by complainant with an ulterior motive due to private and personal grudge. The High Court although noticed the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (supra) in the impugned judgment but did not examine the facts of the case as to whether present is a case which falls in any of the category as enumerated in Bhajan Lal's case. The present case clearly falls in category VII of Bhajan Lal's case and the High Court failed to exercise jurisdiction Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure in quashing the criminal proceeding initiated by the complaint. 24. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that in permitting Criminal proceedings against the Appellant shall be permitting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
