Vinod Kumar And 4 Others v. State Of U.P & Anr.

It is well settled that exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is the exception and not the rule. Under this section, the High Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But the expressions "abuse of process of law" or "to secure the ends of justice" do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law, including procedural law and not otherwise. In Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 259, Court has held that it is not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging. If the factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint, the court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during the investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details. In Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar and others, (2019) 6 SCC 107, Supreme Court observed as to what should be examined by High Court in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and in paras 15, 16 and 17 said as under : "15. The High Court should have seen that when a specific grievance of the appellant in his complaint was that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC, then the question to be examined is as to whether there are allegations of commission of these two offences in the complaint or not. In other words, in order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizable is made out or not, the Court is only required to see the allegations made in the complaint. In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this material question, the impugned order is legally unsustainable.

#16. The second error is that the High Court in para 6 held that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses on the point of occurrence.

#17. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case." (emphasis added) Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, rival submissions made by learned Counsel for parties, and legal proposition discussed hereinabove, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, I do not see any good ground justifying interference in the matter. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 12.5.2022 Manoj YADAV Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad