Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed assailing the order dated 21.05.2012 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nageena in Complaint Case No. 136 of 2010, under Sections 420 /406 IPC, Police Station Badhapur, District Bijnor, summoning applicants after consideration the complaint and recording statement of complainant and other witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and finding prima facie case against applicants. On perusal of impugned order it cannot be said that cognizable offence on the part of applicants is not made out. No legal or otherwise irregularity could be pointed out. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in a routine manner, but it is for limited purposes, namely, to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Time and again, Apex Court and various High Courts, including ours one, have reminded when exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be justified, which cannot be placed in straight jacket formula, but one thing is very clear that it should not preempt a trial and cannot be used in a routine manner so as to cut short the entire process of trial before the Courts below. If from a bare perusal of first information report or complaint, it is evident that it does not disclose any offence at all or it is frivolous, collusive or oppressive from the face of it, the Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but it should be exercised sparingly. This will not include as to whether prosecution is likely to establish its case or not, whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, accusation would not be sustained, or the other circumstances, which would not justify exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I need not go into various aspects in detail but it would be suffice to refer a few recent authorities dealing all these matters in detail, namely, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Popular Muthiah Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police : (2006) 7 SCC 296, Hamida vs. Rashid @ Rasheed and Ors. : (2008) 1 SCC 474, Dr. Monica Kumar and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. : (2008) 8 SCC 781, M.N. Ojha and Ors. Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav and Anr. : (2009) 9 SCC 682, State of A.P. vs. Gourishetty Mahesh and Ors. : JT 2010 (6) SC 588 and Iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola Incorporated and Ors. : 2011 (1) SCC 74.
(2.) IN Lee Kun Hee and others Vs. State of U.P. and others : JT 2012 (2) SC 237, it was reiterated that Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot go into the truth or otherwise of the allegations and appreciate evidence, if any, available on record. Interference would be justified only when a clear case of such interference is made out. Frequent and uncalled interference even at the preliminary stage by High Court may result in causing obstruction in the progress of inquiry in a criminal case which may not be in public interest. It, however, may not be doubted, if on the face of it, either from the first information report or complaint, it is evident that allegation are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no fair -minded and informed observer can ever reach a just and proper conclusion as to the existence of sufficient grounds for proceeding, in such cases refusal to exercise jurisdiction may equally result in injustice, more particularly, in cases, where the complainant sets the criminal law in motion with a view to exert pressure and harass the persons arrayed as accused in the complaint. However, in this matter, after investigation, Police has found a prima facie case against accused and submitted charge -sheet in the Court below. After investigation the police has found a prima facie case of commission of a cognizable offence by accused which should have tried in a Court of Law. At this stage there is no occasion to look into the question, whether the charge ultimately can be substantiated or not since that would be a subject matter of trial. No substantial ground has been made out which may justify interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
(3.) THE learned counsel for applicants then submitted that applicants may be allowed some time to surrender and a direction be issued to court concerned to consider their bail application on the same day and also to follow the law laid down in Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 1994 Cri.L.J. 1981= : 1994(4) SCC 260, Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. : 2009 (4) SCC 437 and Smt. Amarawati and another Vs. State of U.P., : 2005(1) AWC 416. He also requested that till then arrest of applicants be stayed and placed certain orders of this Court wherein such directions have been issued. He pointed out that hundreds and thousands such orders have been passed by this Court and, therefore, following the principle of parity similar direction must be issued in this case also.;