9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 2169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Police Station Talbehat, Distt Lalitpur, the contents of which were that she had opened a shop in the name and style "Kushwaha Bore Wales" at Laitpur for boring machine. Applicant Avadesh and Dinesh were employed to look after the shop and machine. On 29.8.2018 when the complainant (Opp Party No 2) came to her office, boring machine was found missing. After assiduous efforts, it was revealed that these persons had stolen the machines during night. 4. During investigation, statements of complainant (Opp Party No 2) Smt Neelam, Ratan Singh (witness), Pappu Rekhwaar (witness), Dashi Kushwaha (witness), Veer Singh (Witness) and Toran Singh (witness) were recorded. 5. During investigation, the applicant and Dinesh had approached this Court by way of filing Criminal Misc Writ Petition No 27265 of 2018 for quashing of First Information report. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petition with the direction that the petitioner therein shall not be arrested till the submission of the Police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. 6. The Investigating officer after conducting investigation submitted impugned charge sheet only against the applicant herein and not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty no 2 as clerk or servant and master. (VII) The Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed the order of cognizance dated 1.3.2019 without application of mind as the order is on an already printed proforma. (VIII) The counsel further submitted that this Court in Ankit Vs State of U.P. and Another reported in J.I.C 2000 (1) 432, has held that such proforma orders cannot be upheld as the same are passed without application of judicial mind. The counsel further cited judgment passed by Apex Court in Pepsi Foods Limited Vs Special Judicial Magistrate (1997 LawSuit (S.C) 1340) wherein it has been held that summoning of an accused in a criminal matter is a serious business and order must reflect that Magistrate had applied his mind to the facts as well as law applicable thereto. 8. On the basis of these submissions, the learned counsel submitted that circumstances and facts of present case warrant interference of this Court under the inherent power provided under section 482 Cr.P.C, to quash the impugned charge sheet and impugned cognizance/summoning order. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the Opp Party no 2 submitted that from the materials placed before the learned court below, prim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndefinite import. As observed by this Court in Ajit Kumar Palit Vs. State of West Bengal2, the word `cognizance' has no esoteric or mystic significance in criminal law or procedure. It merely means--become aware 2 [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 953 9 of and when used with reference to a Court or Judge, to take notice of judicially. Approving the observations of the Calcutta High Court in Emperor Vs. Sourindra Mohan Chuckerbutty (1910) I.L.R. 37 Calcutta 412, the Court said that `taking cognizance does not involve any formal action; or indeed action of any kind, but occurs as soon as a Magistrate, as such, applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence.' 13. Recently, this Court in S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer Vs. Videocon International Ltd. & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 492, speaking through C.K. Thakker, J., while considering the ambit and scope of the phrase `taking cognizance' under Section 190 of the Code, has highlighted some of the observations of the Calcutta High Court in Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Abani Kumar Banerjee A.I.R. (37) 1950 Calcutta 437, which were approved by this Court in R. R. Chari Vs. State of U.P. A.I.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been made to the cases of Deputy Chief Controller Import and Export Vs Roshan Lal Agarwal, 2003 (4^) ACC 686 (SC), UP Pollution Control Board Vs Mohan Meakins, 2000 (2) JIC 159 (SC): AIR 2000 SC 1456 and Kanti Bhadra Vs State of West Bengal, 2000 (1) JIC 751 (SC): 2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC), the Magistrate is not required to pass detailed reasoned order at the time of taking cognizance on the charge sheet, but it does not mean that order of taking cognizance can be passed by filling up the blanks on printed proforma. At the time of passing any judicial order including the order taking cognizance on the charge sheet, the Court is required to apply judicial mind and even the order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in mechanical manner. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the matter has to be sent back to the Court below for passing fresh order on the charge sheet after applying judicial mind." (Emphasis supplied) 14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vineet Kumar and others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2017) 13 SCC, 369 while considering the issue of scope of section 482 Cr.P.C regarding quashing of criminal proceedings held i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. Although in the above case this Court was considering the power of the High Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR, the case arose out of an FIR registered under Section 161, 165 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. This Court elaborately considered the scope of Section 482 CR.P.C./ Article 226 in the context of quashing the proceedings in criminal investigation. After noticing various earlier pronouncements of this Court, this Court enumerated certain Categories of cases by way of illustration where power under 482 Cr.P.C . can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or secure ends of justice. 25. Paragraph 102 which enumerates 7 categories of cases where power can be exercised under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are extracted as follows: "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... private and personal grudge." 26. A three-Judge Bench in State of Karnataka vs. M. Devenderappa and another, 2002 (3) SCC 89, had occasion to consider the ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. By analysing the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C., 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. Following was laid down in paragraph 6: "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 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 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It was contended before this Court that the complaint filed was nothing but an abuse of the process of law and allegations were unfounded. The prosecuting agency contested the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. taking the stand that a bare perusal of the complaint discloses commission of alleged offences and, therefore, it is not a case which needed to be allowed. The High Court accepted the case of the prosecution and dismissed the application. This Court referred to the judgment in Bhajan Lal case (supra) and held that the case fell within Category 7. Apex Court relying on Category 7 has held that Application under Section 482 deserved to be allowed and it quashed the proceedings. 25. In another case in Priya Vrat Singh and others vs. Shyam Ji Sahai, 2008 (8) SCC 232, this Court relied on Category 7 as laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal(supra). In the above case the Allahabad High Court had dismissed an Application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings under Section 494, 120-B and 109 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After noticing the background facts and parameters for exercise of po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 exercise of the powers 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. 20. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;न लिया गया, आदेश हुआ कि दर्ज रजिस्टर हो । अभियुक्त / अभियुक्तगण के विरूद्ध सम्मन जारी हो । पत्रावली दिनांक 03-05-19 को वास्ते हाजिरी मुल्जिम पेश हो। मुख्य न्यायिक मजिस्ट्रेट ललितपुर । (Underline is supplied to show where the space has been left and are filled later-on.) From a perusal of the above order it is evident that it is a typed proforma wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat- "(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose 265 the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; 20. In view of the above discussion to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of court below, present is a fit case to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of the court provided under section 482 Cr.P.C to prevent abuse of process of lower court as well as to secure ends of justice. For disposal of the present case para 34 of the judgment passed by Supreme Court in Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs State of NCT of Delhi 2018 SCC on-line 2447 is also very useful and the same is quoted hereinafter. "34. It is necessary here to remember the words of this Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others which read as follows: - "7. .....In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion 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. The saving of the High Court& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
