The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised sparingly and with caution, and the court does not function as a Court of Appeal or Revision while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Kumar Verma, J.

This is an application, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the charge-sheet dated 03.04.2022, cognizance/summoning order dated 22.04.2022 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.3314 of 2022, “State vs. Shivam Kumar and Others”, pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar.

2. Subsequent to the submission of the chargesheet, the learned trial court took the cognizance and passed the summoning order under Section 304B of IPC against the present applicants – accused persons.

3. According to the present matter, the marriage of the deceased Smt. Anju Devi, daughter of the informant, took place with Shivam Kumar, the applicant no.1 on 29.04.2021. Her husband, her mother-in-law Smt. Meena, the applicant no.2 – accused, and, her sister-in-law (nanad) Aanchal, the applicant no.3 – accused were demanding that the father of the deceased should sell his property and give half of the amount to them and while demanding that they were torturing the deceased continuously. On 09.11.2021, they treated the deceased with cruelty, inflicted serious injuries on her and killed her in their house (matrimonial house of the deceased). According to the post-mortem report, the cause of the death was hanging.

4. Heard Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, the learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. V.S. Rathour, the learned AGA for the State.

5. Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants – accused persons submitted that the applicants have been implicated in this matter; according to the suicide note of the deceased, the applicant no.1 – the husband of the deceased, is not guilty, and, there was no demand of dowry.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposed the said submissions and submitted that sufficient evidence has been found against the present applicants – accused persons during the investigation.

7. Admittedly, the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the applicant no.1 – Shivam Kumar on 29.04.2021 and she died on 19.11.2021 in her matrimonial house under unnatural circumstances. During the investigation, evidence are found that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her for demand of dowry by the applicants. At this stage, the presumption of the provision of Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 attracts against the applicants.

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 n