C482/1163/2016 of Suresh Pantola Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND ANOTHER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALCriminal Misc. Application No. 1163/2016 (Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.)

Suresh Pantola

…….. Applicant/Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Another ....Respondents

September 16, 2016

Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

Mr. K.K. Harbola, Advocate, for the accused applicant/petitioner.

Mr. H.S. Rawal, A.G.A., for the State/respondent

This petition has been filed invoking powers of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the summoning order dated 26.11.2015, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, in Criminal Case No. 1658/2015, State v. Suresh, under Section 306, 504, 506 IPC.

In the present case, the alleged incident took place on 15.1.2015. First Information Report was lodged on 23.1.2015. After investigation, police submitted the chargesheet on 26.11.2015, whereupon the learned Magistrate took cognisance against the accused applicant on that very day. Since then, the applicant/petitioner is avoiding the process of the Court.

Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties; perusal of the papers available on record, in view of the fact that the Investigation Officer, after duly investigating into the matter, has filed the chargesheet against the petitioner, which inspires confidence and on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed, I am of the view that prima facie case

against the applicant/petitioner under the aforesaid sections is made out and, therefore, the impugned chargesheet and the ongoing trial against the applicant warrant no interference by this Court.

The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC 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 Central Bureau of Investigation v. K.M. Sharan, 2008 (2) CCSC 815.

In view of what has been set forth above, I do not find any force in this petition. It is hereby dismissed at the very threshold.

Prabodh

(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.)