C482/1197/2016 of Siddharth Negi AND OTHERS Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND ANOTHER

C-482 No. 1197 of 2016Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

Mr. Kurban Ali, Advocate for the

applicants.

Mr. G.S. Negi, Brief Holder for the State.

I think that this is not fit case for invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are very wide, but the plentitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Courts must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles.

The scope of Section 482 CrPC has been clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court time and again. Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in that regard has elaborately discussed such scope in the case of “Inder Mohan Goswami & Another v. State of Uttaranchal & others, (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 259”, and has held that inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts under Section 482 CrPC though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is

brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing

injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute. However, the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution. The High Court should normally refrain from giving prima facie decision in case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material.

The above view has further been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Central Bureau of Investigation v. ’K.M. Sharan, 2008 (2) CCSC 815.

So, keeping in mind the aforesaid authorities of the Hon’ble Apex Court, I do not find any force in this C482 petition, it is hereby dismissed.

However, liberty is given to the applicants to move an application before the concerned Magistrate seeking their discharge before levelling the charge against them, who shall hear the arguments of the accused persons on merits and then pass an order before asking them to surrender in the matter.

He will also hear the Advocate on behalf of the forest, then only the order shall be passed.

(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.)20.09.2016