C482/1154/2016 of Amit Sushil Agarwal Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALCriminal Misc. Application No. 1154/2016 (Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.)

Sh. Amit Sushil Agarwal

…….. Applicant/Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Others ....Respondents

September 15, 2016

Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

Mr. Atual Kumar Bansal, Advocate, for the accused applicant/petitioner.

Mr. Vinod Kumar Gemini, Dy. Advocate General, for the State/respondents 1 & 2.

This petition has been filed invoking the powers of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the chargesheet no. 105/2016 dated 3.9.2016 and the entire proceedings pursuant thereto in Criminal Case No. 3287/2016, State v. Prakash Narayan Kandpal & Others, under Section 420 and 34 IPC, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur so far as the same relate to the applicant/petitioner.

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 and other co-accused, which inspires confidence and on the basis of which the impugned proceedings are going on, I am of the view that prima faciecase 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.)