C482/933/2009 of JASWANT SINGH Vs SMT. SURATO DEVI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND ATNAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application No. 933 of 2009 (Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.)

Jaswant Singh

….…… Applicants

versus

Smt. Surato Devi

………Respondent

Mr. Tumul Kumar Nainwarl, Advocate, present for the petitioners/applicants. None appears for the Respondent.

U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

1.The applicants, by way of present petition/application moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash the impugned summoning order dated 22.09.2009 (annexure No.5) passed by the II learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) / Judicial Magistrate, U.S.Nagar in Criminal Case No. 940 of 2009, Smt. Surato Devi vs. Jaswant Singh and others, under Section 323, 498-A, 504 and 506 IPC and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act as well as the entire proceedings, pending before the II Additional Civil Judge (J.D)/Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, in pursuance of order dated 22.09.2009. under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash the impugned summoning order dated 22.09.2009 (annexure No.5) passed by the II learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) / Judicial Magistrate, U.S.Nagar in Criminal Case No. 940 of 2009, Smt. Surato Devi vs. Jaswant Singh and others, under Section 323, 498-A, 504 and 506 IPC and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act as well as the entire proceedings, pending before the II Additional Civil Judge (J.D)/Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, in pursuance of order dated 22.09.2009.

2.A criminal complaint case was filed by the accused against the applicant and three other accused-persons for the offence punishable under Section 323, 498-A, 504 and 406 IPC and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Statement of victim Smt Suarto Devi was recorded. Statements of Jai Singh and Camal Singh applicant and three other accused-persons for the offence punishable under Section 323, 498-A, 504 and 406 IPC and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Statement of victim Smt Suarto Devi was recorded. Statements of Jai Singh and Camal Singh

were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. On the basis of such statement learned ACJM, Rurdrapur having found prima facie case against the accused person including the accused-applicant under Section 323, 498-A, 504 and 506 IPC and ¾ of the dowry Prohibition Act were framed. Applicant Jaswant Singh was husband of respondent-victim Smt. Surto Devi. Learned ACJM considered the contents of complaint as well the statement of the his witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and summoned the offenders under section 498-A, 406, 504 and 506 IPC read with Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused persons. Although it was in advertent mistake on the part of learned Magistrate to have surrendered under Section 406 IPC in as much as he has held during the course that no offence under Section 406 was made out against the applicant. The Medical Report suggested that it was no case of harassment of dowry, therefore it appears that the accused –applicant was recovered summoned for the offence punishable under Section 3/4 of the dowry Prohibition Act. It will be however to unable at the stage on the basis of statement recorded that prima facie offence under section 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 were made against the applicant who is husband of the husband.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another, (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 986, has laid down certain principles in respect of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Some of those principles can be summarised as under:

i.The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no

prudent person can ever reach such conclusion and where the basic ingredients of criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.

ii. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence. down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence.

iii. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.

iv. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loathe to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers. to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loathe to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers.

4. It is settled law of the land that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid in the Section itself. Extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be resorted to like remedy of Appeal or the Revision. Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid in the Section itself. Extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be resorted to like remedy of Appeal or the Revision.

5. Consequence of their application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is dismissed. dismissed.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner cited the case of Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relatives is not uncommon. Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relatives is not uncommon.

7. Since it is medical complaint case, therefore it is provided that considering the nature and facts of the case, if the applicant surrenders before the Court below and seeks bail, his bail shall be decided by the Court concerned on the same day. considering the nature and facts of the case, if the applicant surrenders before the Court below and seeks bail, his bail shall be decided by the Court concerned on the same day.

Kaushal

(U.C. Dhyani, J.)

04.09.2013