Point of law: scope and ambit of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code is concerned, the same has been enunciated and reiterated by this Court in a catena of decisions and illustrative circumstances under which the High Court can exercise jurisdiction in quashing the proceedings have been enumerated. However, for the sake of brevity, we do not propose to make reference to the decisions on the point. It would suffice to state that though the powers possessed by the High Court under the said provision are very wide but these should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the Courts exist. The inherent powers possessed by the High Court are to be exercised very carefully and with great caution so that a legitimate prosecution is not stifled. Nevertheless, where the High Court is convinced that the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused or where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the powers of the High Court under the said provision should be exercised.

ORDER :

1. By means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. applicants Jitesh Kumar Gupta and four others approached this Court for quashing summoning order dated 14.2.2019 in Complaint Case No. 367 of 2019 (Pooja Rani vs. Jitesh Kumar and Others), under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Varanasi and entire proceedings thereof.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present application are that Smt. Pooja Rani filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 18.6.2018 against Jitesh Kumar Gupta, Gopal Chand Gupta, Smt. Parvati Devi, Chandan Gupta and Chandrkesh Gupta stating that her marriage took place with Jitesh Kumar Gupta on 26.4.2016 as per Hindu rites and sufficient Dowry was given according to her father's capability, was given to her in laws at the time of marriage. Complaint further recites that her in-laws started demanding one car and Rs. 5,00,000/- as Dowry and harassing her by saying that Jitesh Kumar Gupta, her husband, is a Government Servant. She was ill-treated and tortured by accused-applicants. On 13.4.2018, she was kicked out from her matrimonial house by husband and family members by snatching her entire belongings.

3. Application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. came to be registered as complaint case. Magistrate recorded the statement of victim-complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and made an enquiry by recording statement of Deen Dayal Prasad (PW-1) and Ashok Kumar Patel (PW-2) under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and found prima-facie case and sufficient ground for proceeding against accused persons, summoned them for facing trial under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, PS Shivpur, District Varanasi vide impugned order dated 14.2.2019.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned summoning order, accused-applicants filed present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the summoning order as well as complaint.

5. I have heard Sri. S.B. Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri. Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for State and perused the record on file.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicants. They have falsely been implicated for the purpose of harassment and humiliation. Magistrate has not applied its mind in passing the impugned order. There is no sufficient evidence in the case to summon the applicants for facing trial. It is submitted that complainant was not a lady of good character, she lived in her parental house at her own will just after the marriage performed. Marriage is not consummated, despite that she gave birth to a male child as a result of adultery. It is further submitted by him that applicant no. 1 Jitesh Kumar Gupta filed a divorce petition in the family court concerned against the complainant and just to escape from legal proceeding of that divorce petition, complainant filed the impugned complaint. Applicants prayed for quashing the impugned complaint.

7. Learned AGA for State vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the impugned order as well as complaint case and submitted that marriage of Pooja Rani and applicant no. 1 Jitesh Kumar Gupta is admitted. Applicant no. 1 stigmatized upon character of his wife and disputed the parentage of his son. Applicants tortured and ill-treated the complainant, therefore, complainant filed the complaint case in which Magistrate after making inquiry rightly summoned the accused persons for facing trial.

8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the records.

9. Before I enter into the facts of the present case it is necessary to consider the ambit and scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. vested in the High Court. Section 482 Cr.P.C. saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order unde