Back
2017 Supreme(All) 1712
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Anil Kumar Srivastava-II, J.
Surendra Singh Bagga @ Raja Sardar - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home and Another - Respondent
Writ Petition U/S 482/378/407 No. 2567 of 2010
Decided On : 08-02-2017
For the Applicant :- Navita Sharma
For the Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Saurabh Srivastava
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of previous sanction of the Registrar as per Section 22(3) of the U.P. Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976 for taking cognizance of an offence.
Headnote:
Money Lending Act - Quashing of Charge Sheet - Sections 7, 10, 12, 22, 23(1) - [U.P. Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976, Sections 7, 10, 12, 22, 23(1)]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the impugned order and quash the charge sheet filed against them under Sections 7, 10, 12, 22, 23(1) of the U.P. Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge sheet under Sections 7 and 12 of the Act was bad in law, as these sections are not penal provisions. Additionally, the court held that no cognizance could be taken without the previous sanction of the Registrar as per Section 22(3) of the Act. The court also concluded that the charge sheet was a misuse of the process of law and therefore quashed it.
Issues: The issues involved were the validity of the charge sheet under Sections 7, 10, 12, 22, 23(1) of the U.P. Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976, and the requirement of previous sanction of the Registrar for taking cognizance of an offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of the U.P. Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976, particularly Sections 7, 10, 12, 22, 23(1), and the requirement of previous sanction of the Registrar as per Section 22(3) of the Act.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the charge sheet under Sections 7, 10, 12, 22, 23(1) of the U.P. Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976 was quashed, along with the setting aside of the impugned order.
Anil Kumar Srivastava-II,J.
1. Heard Ms. Navita Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.
2. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 16.03.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, Raebareli in Case No.1507/09 as well as to quash charge-sheet no.395/09 dated 06.12.2009 bearing case crime no.2987/2009 under Sections 7, 10, 12, 22, 23(1) U.P. Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), P.S.Kotwali, District Raebareli.
3. It appears that a first information report under Sections 7, 10, 12, 22, 23(1) of the Act was registered, which was investigated upon and the charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the provisions of Sections 22(3) of the Act, taking cognizance itself is bad in law as there is no previous sanction of the Registrar. It is further submitted that Section 23(1) of the Act is concerned there is no allegation of molestation which could attract Section 23(1) of the Act.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate supported the impugned order and submits that the points raised by learned counsel for the petitioner could have been seen by learned trial court during trial.
6. Section 22(3) of the Act reads as under:
"22. Penalties. - (1) Whoever, willfully contravenes any of the provisions of Section 10 or Section 11, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both.
(2) ............
(3) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under sub-section (1) except with the previous sanction of the Registrar."
7. So far as Sections 7 and 12 of the Act are concerned they are not penal provisions. No charge sheet could be submitted under these Sections. Hence, charge sheet under Sections 7 and 12 of the Act itself becomes bad in law.
8. Further, so far Sections 10 and 22 of the Act are concerned under Section 22 of the Act wherein, in view of the provisions contained in Section 22(3) of the Act, previous sanction of the Registrar is mandatory before taking cognizance of an offence but no sanction of the Registrar has been obtained by the prosecution prior to filing of the charge sheet and taking of cognizance.
9. Section 23(1) of the Act also did not attract in this case, as the only allegation in the first information report is that the complainant is a poor lady who could not pay the amount which could not be said to be covered under Section 23(1) of the Act.
10. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in a routine manner, but it is for limited purposes, namely, to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Time and again, Apex Court and various High Courts, including ours one, have reminded when exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be justified, which cannot be placed in straight jacket formula, but one thing is very clear that it should not preempt a trial and cannot be used in a routine manner so as to cut short the entire process of trial before the Courts below. If from a bare perusal of first information report or complaint, it is evident that it does not disclose any offence at all or it is frivolous, collusive or oppressive from the face of it, the Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but it should be exercised sparingly. This will not include as to whether prosecution is likely to establish its case or not, whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, accusation would not be sustained, or the other circumstances, which would not justify exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I need not go into various aspects
