Rohit Kumar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 93 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43268 of 2023 Applicant :- Rohit Kumar And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ranvijay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J. Applicants being accused have approached this Court through this application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the Criminal Case No.671 of 2023 (State vs. Rohit Kumar and others) arises from Crime No.0203 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and under Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, Police Station-Sadh, District Kanpur Dehat. Learned counsel for the applicant-accused persons has argued that the respondent no.2 has falsely implicated the applicants in case crime no.0203 of 2022 and her matrimonial dispute is with the husband alone who is applicant no.1-Rohit Kumar. He submits that the applicant nos.2 to 5, who are the close relatives of the husband of respondent no.2, do not deserve to be prosecuted as they are living separately. He prays that the impugned charge sheet and the proceedings arising out of it, be quashed in the interest of justice. During the course of hearing, it is not disputed by the learned counsel that the applicant nos.2 to 5 are residing in the same building where the respondent no.2 along with her husband was residing after her marriage. Learned counsel fairly states that there is no formal division of property but inside the house they all are living separately and are sharing the energy bill which is generated through one bill. Apart from this, learned counsel has further stated that the impugned charge sheet is yet to be considered by the trial court as the charges have not be framed so far in the subject case. Thus, considering the above background as well as the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmatma Singh vs. Harminder Singh & Ors. report in Criminal Appeal No.1126 of 2011 (3) RCR Criminal 38, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, if, a party can avail alternative remedy according to the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, in that eventuality the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised. The relevant observations read as under : "13. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It has been held by this Court in R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866] that Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (which corresponds to Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice and such inherent power cannot be exercised in regard to matters specifically covered by the other provisions of the Code and therefore where the Magistrate has not applied his mind under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. to the merits of the reports and passed order, the High Court ought not to consider a request for quashing the proceedings. In the case of R. P. Kapur (supra) on 10.12.1958, M.L. Sethi lodged a First Information Report against R.P. Kapur and alleged that he and his mother-in-law had committed offences under Sections 420-109, 114 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. R.P. Kapur moved the Punjab High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated by the First Information Report. When the petition of R.P. Kapur was pending in the High Court, the police report was submitted under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and the High Court held that no case had been made out for quashing the proceedings under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 and dismissed the petition. R. P. Kapur carried an appeal by way of Special Leave to this Court and this Court dismissed the appeal for inter alia the following reasons: " In the present case the magistrate before whom the police report has been filed under S. 173 of the Code has yet not applied his mind to the merits of the said report and it may be assumed in favour of the appellant that his request for the quashing of the proceedings is not at the present stage covered by any specific provision of the Code. It is well established that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Ordinarily, criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage..." As we have found in the present case that learned Magistrate had not applied his mind to the merits of the reports filed under Section 173, Cr.P.C., we are of the considered opinion that the exercise of power by the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C., was at an interlocutory stage and was not warranted in the facts of this case." In view of the above background of the case as well as law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, does not find it to be a fit case for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. However, it shall be open for the applicants to raise all the grounds pleaded in this application, before the Magistrate at an appropriate stage. With the above observations, this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C is dismissed. Order Date :- 28.11.2023 Raj High Court of Judicature at Allahabad