The power of quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where no cognizable offense is disclosed in the FIR.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Kumar Verma, J.

The applicant-accused, namely, Manoj Kumar Gangwar has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the impugned charge-sheet, the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 06.08.2020 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 05 of 2020, “State vs. Manoj Gangwar”, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Dhari, District Nainital.

2. Subsequent to submission of the charge-sheet, the learned trial court took the cognizance and passed the summoning order under Sections 354A, 354D, 323 and 452 of IPC against the present applicant.

3. Heard Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.T. Bharadwaj, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

4. According to the allegations of the First Information Report, the present applicant assaulted the informant/victim and followed the victim repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by her.

5. During the trial, the informant/victim has been examined as PW1.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that all the allegations of the FIR are false; there were love relations between the informant and the present applicant; there is no ingredient of criminal force or to outrage the modesty of the alleged victim; there was no motive of the applicant for obtaining the sexual gratification, because the victim was consenting party.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that during the investigation, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and in her statements before the Court as PW1, she has supported the case of the prosecution as well as her statement, recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

8. Section 482 of the Code envisages three circumstances in which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, “to give effect to an order under the Code, or, to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or, to secure the ends of justice.” Section 482 of the Code reads as follows:

“Saving of inherent powers of High Court:-

Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

9. This inherent jurisdiction though wide should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex-debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice. While exercising jurisdiction under this section, the Court does not function as a Court of Appeal or Revision. Therefore, quashing of charge-sheet or setting aside the summoning order on the appreciation of evidence is not justified.

10. The scope of Section 482 of the Code has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments.

11. In Madhu Limaya Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1978 AIR 47, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the following principles would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the High Court –

(1) Power is not to be resorted to, if there is specific provision in Code for redress of grievances of aggrieved party.

(2) It should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.

(3) It should not be exercised against the express bar of the law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.

12. In Pepsi Food Limited vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, 1998 (36) ACC 20, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that under Section 482 of the Code have no limits, but more the power more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers.

13. In Lee Kun Hee and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, JT 2012 (2) SC 237, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Court in exercise of its jurisdictio