In a Latest Judgment of Allahabad High Court, the Court has examined the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C and its limits as well the exceptions under which the Court can interfere in a matter
Brief facts of the case Rudra Prakash Tiwari Vs. The state of U.P. are as follows:-
In the Court the petitioners stated that a case under section 138 was already pending against them and one of the accused in this case was granted bail. However, a similar case has been filed against them and offences under section 320, 504 and 506 have been alleged. They also state that no offences under section 420 have been made out and they have been summoned according to those sections as well. As per the applications, the filing of this case is an abuse of process of law.
To trace the genesis of the present complaint, the Court went through complaint 1123 of 2018. It became apparent to the Court that a business deal was struck between the applicants in this case and Mr Sushil Kumar who was the complainant in the cheque bounce case.
As per the deal, the applicants were supposed to acquire some land to set up solar plants, and they were to share the commission with Mr Sushil Kumar. A sale deed for the land was executed, and the complainants promised Mr Sushil that his share of the commission would be paid through cheque. The cheque was issued as well, but the payment was stopped, and so Mr Sushil filed a case under section 138 against Rudra Prakash Tiwari and his son. As the complainants had threatened and abused Mr Sushil, a separate complaint was filed under section 420, 504 and 506 of CrPC.
The reasoning of the Court
The Court examined the testimony of witnesses who corroborated the claim of Mr.Sushil. While passing its judgement the Court stated that in exercise of inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. the Court is not expected to meticulously analyse the facts and evidence as it is within the domain of trial court.
Further the Court referred to a judgement of the Supreme Court’s in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767: 2010 Cr. LJ 3844, where it was held that it was not the job of the High Court to examine if the evidence is reliable or not as it is the job of the trial court. In such a case the High Court ought not exercise its jurisdiction under section 482
A reference was also made to Supreme Court Judgement in Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana Kumar, (1990) Cr LJ 320 (D.B.): AIR 1990 SC 494 where the apex court held that “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”.
The decision of the Court
After going through the record and all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court held that in the instant case, the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is within limits, and dismissed the application of the petitioners.
Court: Allahabad High Court
Title: Sri Rudra Prakash Tiwari @ Raju Tiwari and another vs State of U.P. and Another
Case No.- Application U/s 482 No. 12608 of 2020
Date of Decision: 21.09.2020
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Ram Krishna Gautam
Appearance: Mr. Shivakant and Government Advocate