The court emphasized the limited scope of Section 482 of CrPC and highlighted that it should not be used as a substitute for trial or mini-trial, and that the court's role is to consider whether there is sufficient material to proceed further against the accused.

JUDGMENT :

The brief genesis of this C482 Application commences from the registration of the FIR, being FIR No. 307 dated 26.08.2022, by the complainant respondent No. 2 herein, as against the present applicant, who is the father-in-law of the present applicant, for his alleged involvement in commission of offence under Sections 323, 376, 506 and 511 of IPC.

2. There are certain facts, which have been mentioned, as to the manner in which the offence has been committed, as narrated in the FIR and subsequently established too by the Chargesheet, as submitted by the Investigating Officer, this Court is deliberately not making any detailed analysis, except for the argument extended by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant to substantiate, that the instant case happens to be an abuse of process, and this Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC to curb an abuse of process.

3. The argument extended by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant could be summarized in the following manner:-

(i) She has harped upon the fact, that no credibility could be attached to the allegations levelled in the FIR, for the reason being, that for the incident is of 10.08.2022 and the FIR which was being registered on 26.08.2022, itself would attach malice to the proceedings and registration of the FIR would be deemed to be as an afterthought.

(ii) It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that the CCTV footage it was available according to her, but the Investigating Officer has not taken care of the same and hence too, no sanctity could be attached to the proceedings drawn against the present applicant, who is 78 years of age.

(iii) That the photograph, which she has appended with the instant C482 Application, she has attempted to show that the allegations leveled in the FIR could not be culled out from the perusal of the photographs to show presence of the accused, which has been placed on record, because no such incident had chanced on the date i.e. of 10.08.2022, as narrated in the aforesaid FIR.

(iv) She has further submitted that the wife of the applicant, who is a handicapped person and was on the wheelchair, has not said anything with regard to the said incident dated 10.08.2022.

(v) She refers to that the neighbours have submitted their affidavits before the Investigating Officer, whereby the neighbours have supported the case of the present applicant, contending thereof that no offence as such, on 10.08.2022, had ever chanced and the Investigating Officer has erred at law, by not recording any finding on the same, and the impact, which it carried to the investigation, qua the affidavits submitted by the neighbours.

(vi) The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has further elaborated her argument that it is absolutely a false case, which has been developed, in order to dilute the matrimonial dispute and the claim of the complainant was raised by the complainant against the applicant herein, over the land, which belonged to the present applicant.

(vii) She further submits that the ocular test or the evidence, which is there on record may not have a precedence over the actual incident, which has chanced on 10.08.2022, hence based on that, she has submitted that it is hardly an improbable story, which has been developed by the prosecution by registering FIR for the involvement of the present applicant in commission of offence under Sections 323, 376 and 506 of IPC.

3. This Court feels it apt, to answer the arguments extended by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, in the following manner. Firstly, that what impact the delayed registration of the FIR would have, besides the fact, that its circumstances under which the delayed FIR has been registered, would still be a subject matter of trial, but merely because of the fact that the FIR has been registered at a belated stage, that in itself may not be an exclusive reason for interference under C482, because the determination of it