1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records.2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants Pankaj Patel and five others against State of U.P. and Pappu Patel with prayer to quash summoning order dated 06.02.2020 passed by A.C.J.M. Vth, Jaunpur, as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 970 of 2019, Pappu Patel Vs. Pankaj Patel, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 392 I.P.C., P.S. Mungra Badshahpur, district Jaunpur.3. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that Case Crime No. 377 of 2019, u/s 323, 324, 506 I.P.C. at P.S. Sujanganj, District Jaunpur, was lodged by Pankaj Patel against complainant and two others and as a counter blast of the same, this complaint was filed by way of application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. after six days and it was treated as a complaint, wherein impugned summoning is there. It is under abuse of law. Hence this application with above prayer.4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the above argument.5. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through the material placed on record, it is apparent that a complaint was filed with contention that on 17.8.2019 at 9.00 A.M. when the complainant along with his wife Urmila Devi and daughter Ayushi Patel were on their way for medical treatment by his motorcycle, accused Pankaj Patel, Samarjeet Patel, Dharmendra Patel, Chanchal Patel, Lalloo Patel, Banthu Patel and Nagendra under joint mensrea obstructed motorcycle then after they abused and extended criminal intimidation. When this was protested Pankaj Patel did assault. In the occurrence Samarjeet snatched golden chain. Complainant and his wife were badly assaulted by hands, kicks, lathi and danda. When Subhash Patel tried to intervene, Pankaj Patel gave knife assault causing grievous injury. Upon hue and cry Vinod Chauhan, Brijesh Saroj, Soni Sroj, Nagendra Patel, Subhash Patel, Panna Lal Patel and many others rushed and when they intervened, complainant side could be saved. A threat with dire consequences was extended. Matter was reported at police station but of no avail. They all were got medically examined and subsequently this complaint was filed. Magistrate took cognizance over it and under his enquiry got statement of complainant recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and of his witnesses u/s 202 Cr.P.C. On the basis of statement made by complainant in full corroboration of contention of complaint and reiteration of same by witnesses Panna Lal Patel and Subhash, the impugned summoning order was passed, whereby the present applicants were summoned for the offences punishable u/s 147, 323, 504, 506, 392 I.P.C. Moreso, the occurrence at above date, time and place is undisputed because Case Crime No. 377 of 2019 has been lodged by applicant Pankaj Patel himself against Pappu Patel, Subhash Chand Patel and Prem Chand Patel i.e. presence of those injured persons at above spot and commission of occurrence is undisputed and what was the sequence of occurrence is a fact to be seen by the trial court.6. This court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is not expected to meticulously analyse the facts and evidence as it is matter of trial to be seen during trial.7. Saving of inherent power of High Court, as given under Section 482 Cr.P.C, provides that 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. Meaning thereby this inherent power is with High Court (I) to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any other order under this Code (II) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court (III) or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767: 2010 Cr. LJ 3844 has propounded that "While exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable apprehension of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge/Court". In another subsequent Hamida v. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474, hon'ble Apex Court propounded that "Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 at an interlocutory stage which after filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed procedure, or to delay the trial which enable to win over the witness or may disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately resulting in miscarriage of Justice". In again another subsequent Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781, the Apex Court has propounded "Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 has 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." While interpreting this jurisdiction of High Court Apex Court in Popular Muthiah v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296 has propounded "High Court can exercise jurisdiction suo motu in the interest of justice. It can do so while exercising other jurisdictions such as appellate or revisional jurisdiction. No formal application for invoking inherent jurisdiction is necessary. Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised in respect of substantive as well as procedural matters. It can as well be exercised in respect of incidental or supplemental power irrespective of nature of proceedings".8. Regarding prevention of abuse of process of Court, Apex Court in Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana Kumar, (1990) Cr LJ 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494 has propounded "To prevent abuse of the process of the Court, High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482 could quash the proceedings but there would be justification for interference only when the complaint did not disclose any offence or was frivolous vexatious or oppressive" as well as in State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr LJ 1005: AIR 1989 SC 1, Apex Court propounded "In exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 High Court would not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not".9. Meaning thereby, exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded as above.10. Accordingly, there remains nothing for any indulgence in this proceeding. The prayer for quashing summoning order as well as proceeding of the aforesaid complaint case is refused and the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.11. However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within thirty days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.12. For a period of thirty days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.13. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.