Back
2013 Supreme(UK) 277
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. Justice U.C. Dhyani
Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 651 of 2008
GURUCHARAN SINGH & ANR. – Applicants
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR. – Respondents
Decided on : 24.06.2013
For the Applicants :Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.S. Saun, AGA and Ms. Meena Bohara, Brief Hoder
For the Respondent No. 2: Mr. M.S. Pal, Sr. Adv., assisted by Mr. C.S. Dumka, Adv.
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 482 — Jurisdiction of Court — Exercise of — Held — If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion — And where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the court may interfere and exercise its jurisdiction u/s 482, Cr.P.C. to prevent patent miscarriage of justice — Inherent jurisdiction u/s 482, Cr.P.C. to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself — But, the instant case appears to be one such case in which such jurisdiction should be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. (Paras 7, 8)
n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 482 & vnkyr dk {ks=kf/kdkj & iz;ksx & /kkfjr vxj vkjksi Li”Vr% fujFkZd gks vkSj varfuZfgrr% vlaHkkfor fd dksbZ fo}ku O;fDr dHkh bl fu’p; ij igq¡ps & vkSj tgk¡ vkijkf/kd vkjksi ds ekSfyd la?kVd larq”V u gks rc U;k;ky; }kjk gLr{ksi fd;k tk ldrk gS] u/s 482, Cr.P.C. vius vf/kdkjksa dk iz;ksx dj U;k; dk izR;{k guu jksdus ds fy, & U/s 482, Cr.P.C. varfuZfgr vf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx U;wure] lko/kkuh iwoZd rHkh djuk pkfg, tc ;g vH;kl U;k;ksfpr gks ijh{k.k ls tks fof’k”Vr% /kkjk esa vf/kdfFkr gS & ijUrq izLrqr okn esa bl vf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx vnkyr dh izfØ;k dks nq#i;ksx ls cpkus ds fy, fd;k tk,xkA ¼izLrj 7] 8½
Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. (oral)
Counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 in the Court is taken on record.
2. The applicants, by means of present application/petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek to quash the summoning order dated 21.04.2008 as well as the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 08 of 2008, Lakkha Singh vs Gurucharan Singh and another, under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC, within the jurisdiction of police station Kunda, District Udham Singh Nagar, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.
3. A criminal complaint case was filed by the complainant/respondent no. 2 against the accused persons/applicants in respect of offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC. After the statements of the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and Harbhajan Singh and Jaswant Singh under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., the accused persons/applicants were summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. Learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, vide order dated 21.04.2008, found that no prima facie offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC was made out against the accused persons. Accused persons/applicants have challenged the impugned summoning order under Sections 504, 506 of IPC. In the complaint as well as in the statement of the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., the abuses, allegedly hurled at the complainant, were not described. The same was the case with the statements of Harbhajan Singh and Jaswant Singh under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Prima facie, the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC were not made out against the accused persons on a bare reading of the complaint and statements under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C.
4. It was also alleged in the complaint that the complainant was married to the daughter of accused no. 1 on 15.01.2007. Kamaljeet Kaur was residing with the complainant (husband) after her marriage. The husband and wife were living peacefully. On 10.09.2007, the accused persons came to the house of the complainant. They requested the complainant to send his wife, to which the complainant declined. The accused persons insisted for taking away Kamaljeet Kaur with them. Accused Gurucharan Singh is the father of Kamaljeet Kaur and accused no. 2 Palvinder Singh is the brother of Kamaljeet Kaur. They levelled allegations against the complainant that Kamaljeet Kaur is harassed by him. They insisted that the complainant will have to mutate her name in respect of five acres of land, or else, he will have to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/- in her name in a bank, failing which the complainant will be killed. On 19.11.2007, accused no. 1, duly armed with knife, came alongwith 5-6 people and tried to take his daughter (complainant’s wife) alongwith him. An altercation took place between them. Some of the villagers intervened, otherwise the accused persons would have killed the complainant and his family members. Largely the averments made in the complaint were narrated by the complainant in his statement under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The complaint story was supported by Harbhajan Singh. Another witness, Jaswant Singh denied any marpeet (assault) having been taken place in his presence. Jaswant Singh said that the accused no. 1 wanted to take back his daughter (who was the wife of the complainant).
5. Learned counsel for the applicants drew the attention of this Court towards Annexure-4, enclosed with the supplementary affidavit, and submitted that an out of Court settlement took place between the parties on 26.07.2007. The present incident allegedly took place on 19.11.2007. Two earlier complaints filed by Lakkha Singh were quashed by this Court vide order dated 05.03.2012. Those complaint cases were filed in respect of alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 452, 504 and 392 of IPC against the accused applicants. It is also pointed out that
