- (1.) THIS application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") seeks quashing of summoning order dated 23.5.2015 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1609 of 2014 (Smt. Neelam Vs. Amit Saini and others) under Section 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur. The usual grounds taken are that the applicants have been implicated falsely, they are innocent, there is no credible evidence and the entire proceedings are on account of enmity etc.
(2.) THE Magistrate concerned, after recording the statement under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., has found commission of cognizable offence under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and, therefore, has summoned the applicants.
(3.) IN my view, it cannot be said that a cognizable offence is not being made out from the perusal of complaint and the statements recorded by the Court below. I, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the order challenged in this application. 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 preampt 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 Supp1 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., 2010 6 JT 588 and Iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola Incorporated and Ors, 2011 1 SCC 74.;