UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
N.S. Dhanik, J.
H.P. Singh – Applicant
versus
State of Uttarakhand and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.358 of 2016
Decided on 1.10.2019

IMPORTANT POINT
Inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 354 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Attempt to outrage modesty of a woman – Quashing application – Allegations made in complaint, if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, prima facie case is made out against accused applicant – Summoning order and proceedings of a complaint case can be quashed if complaint on very face of it does not disclose any offence against accused – In present case, specific allegations have been made against accused persons including present applicant – Alleged incident has been narrated in detail with specific date and time – Background scenario and motive behind alleged incident have also been stated in complaint – Process has been issued against accused applicant after taking cognizance of complaint and examining complainant and witnesses – Inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution – Criminal Miscellaneous Application dismissed.

Held: Further, on the basis of the materials on record, I am also of the opinion that on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint, if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, a prima facie case is made out against the accused applicant. It is settled law that the summoning order and the proceedings of a complaint case can be quashed if the complaint on the very face of it does not disclose any offence against the accused. In the present case, specific allegations have been made against the accused persons including the present applicant. Alleged incident has been narrated in detail with specific date and time. The background scenario and the motive behind the alleged incident have also been stated in the complaint. Process has been issued against the accused applicant after taking cognizance of the complaint and examining the complainant and the witnesses.

It is also settled law that power under Section 482 CrPC requires great caution in its exercise. A Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court 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. 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. However, the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.

In view of what has been set forth above, I do not find any force in this criminal miscellaneous application. Consequently, the present C482 petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Inform the Court concerned accordingly. – (Paras 10 to 12)

(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 56 and 57 – – Fact judicially noticeable need not be proved – No evidence is required of that fact of which judicial notice has been taken by Court and same shall be recognized as true without proof thereof – However, condition precedent for same is that such a fact should be very authentic and well known to public – Entries of Passport, as relied by applicant in support of his plea of alibi, are not the facts which are covered under sub-sections (6), (8) and (13) of Section 57 of Evidence Act.

Held: – Having considered the materials on record and the rival contentions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, I am unable to agree with the contentions urged by learned Counsel for the applicant. Section 56 is the celebrated provision of Evidence Act which provides that “no fact which the Court will take judicial notice need be proved” i.e. no evidence is required of that fact of which the judicial notice has been taken by the Court and the same shall be recognized as true without proof thereof. However, the condition precedent for the same is that such a fact should be very authentic and well known to the public. In my considered opinion, the entries of the passport, as relied by the applicant in support of his plea of alibi, are not the facts which are covered under sub-sections (6), (8) and (13) of Section 57 of the Evidence Act. – (Para 7)

Result: Criminal Miscellaneous Application dismissed.