High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Raunak Janha And Another v. State Of U.P. And Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 4117 of 2005  RD-AH 5333 (8 November 2005)
Court No. 54
Criminal Misc. Application No. 4117 Of 2005.
Raunak Janha and another Vs. State of U.P. and another.
Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.1.2005 passed by the Acting District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 36 of 2005 confirming the summoning order of the Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 3195 of 2003, under Sections 312, 318 and 406 I.P.C. It has been argued by counsel for the applicants that the complaint case is absolutely malafide one and he has placed the document showing that the wife had delivered a baby in a Maternity Home which has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit. The complaint was filed under Sections 312, 318, 406 I.P.C. but the learned Magistrate has summoned the applicants under Section 318 I.P.C. alone. The objection raised by the learned counsel involves factual controversy which can not be decided by this Court in exercise of inherent powers.
Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on a latest decision, State of Orissa Vs. Devendra Nath Padhi, 2005(1), J.I.C. 289 (S.C.). The argument advanced on behalf of the applicants is that since principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration and another, J.T. 1996 (7) S.C. 6 has been overruled and it has been laid down that at the stage of Sections 227, 228, 239 and 240 Cr.P.C. the defence evidence can not be looked into but in exercise of inherent powers this Court can look into the documents produced on behalf of the defence and discharge the applicant. The emphasis has been laid down in paragraph 29 of the aforesaid decision which is quoted below:-
"Regarding the argument of accused having to face the trial despite being in a position to produce material of unimpeachable character of sterling quality, the width of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code and Article 226 of Constitution of India is unlimited where under in the interests of justice the High Court can make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice within the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal's Case."
The ratio laid down in the aforesaid case is not disputed but the learned counsel appearing for the applicants has not been able to produce any material of impeachable character of sterling quality and as such I do not find any merit in this case for issuance of notice to advent a decision on the factual controversies, which could be raised at the time of trial.
In view of a number of the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960, S.C. 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal, 1991 (28) A.C.C. 111 (S.C.), Union of India Vs. Prakash P. Hinduja and another, 2003 (47) A.C.C., 433, this Court can not enter in appraisal of evidence as desired by the counsel in the instant case. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the case and this application is accordingly rejected.
However, since the applicants are ladies, in the interest of justice, they should be permitted to appear during the trial through counsel and they should furnish a personal bond in confirmation with the provisions of Section 88 Cr.P.C. for appearance whenever the court requires to do so such as for recording evidence etc. The applicants shall furnish personal bond for appearance within a period of three weeks from today.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.