D.N.Jha - (1.) THIS is an application under section 482 CrPC filed by Sanwal Das Gupta praying that the complaint filed by Jhabbu be quashed. It may be mentioned that the learned Magistrate who took cognizance of the complaint had satisfied himself after examination of witnesses who had been examined under section 200 and 202 CrPC. I have gone through the averments made in the complaint and Annexure-4 to Annexure-8 which are depositions made by various persons. I would not like to make any observation with respect to these statements because trial is pending and is yet to be decided by the trial court.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that there was no case against the applicant and it was a false, frivolous and vexatious complaint presented before the court with ulterior motive to deprive the applicant of his job. LEARNED counsel pointed out that Sanwal Das Gupta is working in the capacity of a highly skilled 'A' grade employee in Tulsipur Sugar Factory. He also emphasized that he has beau residing at the factory colony and has no connection whatsoever with the incident. Here it would only suffice to say that all the witnesses have consistently named the applicant. Two of the witnesses have also assigned the gun in the hands of Sanwal Das Gupta. It cannot at the out set be said that a cock and bull story has been bolstered up to wreak venegeance. In this view of the matter it would not be proper for this Court to record any finding either in favour of the applicant or against the applicant lest, any prejudice might occur at the trial. I would only like to observe that there is a false notion with respect to ambit of section 482 CrPC. This provision is an extra ordinary provision and is not compatible with Article 226 of the Constitution. I am noticing these days that this court is being flooded with petitions under section 482 CrPC, loosing sight of the fact that the disputed questions of fact have only to be thrashed out before a trial court and the Criminal Procedure Code has made provision by creating heirarchy of Courts to analyse the facts and dispense justice according to law. It is in exceptional circumstances that the High Court in order to prevent abuse of process of law or in the interest of justice interferes. There is no limitation on power so far as this provision is concerned. The High Courts have only to act with great circumspection in order to see that injustice is not perpetrated, this court has also to see that while imparting justice it does not perpetrate injustice. Therefore this court acts with self imposed restrictions. Every Court created under the Criminal Procedure Code is expected to impart justice in every case in accordance with law. There can be no presumption that the court takes cognizance merely because of bias or ill will against anyone. The courts are expected to act bearing in mind that it bears malice towards none. If democracy is to sustain in this country responsibility lies on judiciary to rise to the occasion and protect the democratic set up with strong bands lest the very fabric of the democracy may not crumble into pieces like house of cards. I have no reason to doubt that Magistrate will not dispense justice. The apprehension raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that if the applicant surrenders he will not foe bailed out as the offence in the opinion is triable exclusively by court of Sessions. It may be mentioned that once a Magistrate takes cognizance, he can also exercise the right of enlarging a person on bail. There are no fetters so far as the provision of bail is concerned. The Magistrates as an abundant caution do not admit a person to bail in heinious and serious crimes. Again it is a self imposed restriction and not restriction by law. In the instant case it has been brought to the notice of the court that the other co-accused have been admitted to bail from the court of Sessions. The learned Magistrate can in view of maintaining parity admit the applicant to bail provided he offers himself to be bailed out. With the above observations I do not think that any case is made out for interference by this court in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC. This petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. A copy of this order may be issued by tomorrow on payment of necessary charges. Petition dismissed.;