The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised sparingly and with caution, and the Court cannot function as a Court of Appeal or Revision.

JUDGMENT :

The applicant-accused Harish Kapri has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the charge-sheet and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 352 of 2022, “State vs. Shubham Kapri and Another”, pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh.

2. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed. The trial court took cognizance and passed the summoning order under Sections 307, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. against the present applicant.

3. Heard Mr. Amit Kapri, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.S. Adhikari, the learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. B.S. Thind, the learned Brief Holder for the State.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant-accused submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated. According to the medical report, there were simple injuries on the head of the alleged victim and according to the Doctor, the said injuries were caused by hard and blunt object, and, at the time of medical examination, it was found that the alleged victim had consumed alcohol and was intoxicated. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that there is no prima facie evidence against the present applicant to constitute an offence under Section 307 IPC.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposed the said submissions and submitted that on 12.11.2021 at around 11:00 p.m., the present applicant-accused and his son, co-accused, had beaten the informant/victim with iron rods with the intention to kill him, due to which, the informant/injured had received injuries and he became unconscious.

6. The learned counsel for the State further submitted that eighteen stitches were found on the head of the informant/injured. The learned counsel for the State submitted that the First Information Report clearly discloses cognizable offence, committed by the applicant, and, during the investigation, evidence are found against the present applicant. The injured along with the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Apart from this, medical report also supports the case of the prosecution.

7. 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.”

8. 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 chargesheet or setting aside the summoning order on the appreciation of evidence is not justified.

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

10. In Madhu Limaya Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 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.

11. In Pepsi Food Limited vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, 1998 (36) ACC 20, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that un