Back
2021 Supreme(All) 570
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. Munir, J.
Tarun Jain – Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Application U/s 482 No. 13181 of 2020
Decided On : 16-07-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant : Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, Navin Chandra Srivastava
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Charge-sheet – Investigation - Application was initially heard an interim stay of further proceedings before Magistrate was granted pending admission for reasons indicated in order of that date - Later on this application came when by detailed order it was admitted to hearing and notice was issued not only to State but also second opposite party requiring both these opposite parties to file counter affidavit – Time bound interim order granted on was directed to remain in operation until further orders - Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of State – Held, Correct position of law as laid down in supra thesis that orders framing charges or refusing discharge are neither interlocutory nor final in nature and are therefore not affected by bar of Section - That apart this Court in above cited cases has unequivocally acknowledged that High Court is imbued with inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice having regard to facts and circumstance individual cases - As caveat it may be stated that High Court while exercising its afore stated jurisdiction ought to be circumspect - Discretion vested in High Court is to be invoked carefully and judiciously for effective and timely administration of criminal justice system - This Court nonetheless does not recommend complete hands off approach - Albeit there should be interference may be in exceptional cases failing which there is likelihood of serious prejudice to rights citizen - For example when contents of complaint or other purported material on record is brazen attempt to persecute an innocent person it becomes imperative upon Court to prevent abuse of process of law – Order accordingly
JUDGMENT :
This Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for short “the Code” seeks to quash proceedings of Case No. 1111 of 2020, State v. Tarun Jain (arising out of Case Crime No. 325 of 2020), under Sections 182, 188 and 271 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for short “the Penal Code”, pending before the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Gautam Buddh Nagar.
2. This application was initially heard on 21.09.2020, and an interim stay of further proceedings before the Magistrate was granted pending admission, for reasons indicated in the order of that date. Later on, this application came up on 19.01.2021, when, by a detailed order, it was admitted to hearing and notice was issued not only to the State, but also the second opposite party, requiring both these opposite parties to file a counter affidavit. The time-bound interim order granted on 21.09.2020 was directed to remain in operation until further orders. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State on 01.02.2021. The complainant-opposite party no. 2, who is a Sub-Inspector of Police, and to whom notice was directed to issue, has not been served, with the Office not putting in a report either way. It is a little hard to believe that a Sub-Inspector of Police would not be served through the criminal process that is routed through the Police. In any case, the presence of the second opposite party is not much required in his case, instituted on a Police Report, where the State is before us. For the said reason, this matter was heard on 24.03.2021, and judgment reserved.
3. Heard Mr. Navin Chandra Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State.
4. The case against the applicant is that the second opposite party lodged a First Information Report, for short “FIR” with Police Station -Sector 49, NOIDA, District -Gautam Buddh Nagar to the effect that the informant, who is a Sub-Inspector and was on duty on 25.03.2020. A tweet by the applicant came to his notice, which said that maid servants and courier boys were entering the society, where the applicant resides, without sanitizing themselves and the maintenance staff have not provided for sanitizers to enable them to do so. The FIR further goes on to say that orders under Section 144 of the Code had been promulgated in the district, looking to the Corona Virus (CoViD-19) pandemic, and the applicant, by his tweet aforesaid, had spread a rumour, violating the prohibitory order. On this short information, an FIR was registered against the applicant, giving rise to Case Crime No. 325 of 2020, under Sections 182, 188 and 271 of the Penal Code, Police Station -Sector 49, NOIDA, District -Gautam Buddh Nagar. The police, after investigation, have submitted the impugned Charge-sheet dated 02.06.2020, saying that offences punishable under Sections 182, 188 and 271 of the Penal Code are disclosed against the applicant from the investigation made, the statement of the complainant, statement of the witnesses, statement of the accused and on an inspection of the place of occurrence. The Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence, by means of an order dated 07.07.2020 and issued summons to the applicant to stand his trial for the offences alleged.
5. It is argued by learned Counsel for the applicant that though a notice under Section 41A of the Code was issued to the applicant, asking him to attend the police station on 25.03.2020, but when he went there, the Police did not record his statement or ask him any questions; rather they released him on furnishing a personal bond. It is specifically argued with reference to the averments in Paragraph Nos. 6 and 8 of the affidavit filed in support of the application that the Police have not undertaken any investigation worth the name and have filed a charge-sheet, doing a mere show of investigation, recording cyclo-styled statements of police
