RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicants over this Application, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the applicants, against State of U.P. and another, with a prayer for quashing of summoning order, dated 7th September, 2019, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Lalitpur, in Complaint Case No. 48 of 2019, under Sections 395 and 397 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station- Kotwali Lalitpur, District-Lalitpur, and to stay further proceedings, in above case.
(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant s argued that the above complaint case was a counter-blast, which was got registered in response to a complaint case, got filed by the applicants, on 28.3.2019, for an occurrence of 8.3.2019, wherein, present complainant side has been named, and as such, above case with these accusations was got lodged, implicating entire family members of the applicants and they have been summoned by the Presiding Judge, whereas, there is inconsistency in the statements of complainant and his witnesses, recorded, under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C.
(3.) Learned AGA, representing State of U.P., has vehemently opposed this Application. From very perusal of the impugned summoning order, it is apparent that the occurrence was said to be of 8.3.2019, wherein, accused persons, applicants (herein), alongwith others, were said to have come at the home of complainant, by Tractor and Trolley, wherein complainant's mother, Rasrani, was present. They tookaway 50 quintal of grains, worth about Rs.2,00000/-, and on being protested, they used force with abuse. Complainant rushed to his home and he too was assaulted. This was witnessed by Lokendra, Sonu Tanay, and nand Kishore, Information of this incident was sent to the Police Station, Kotwali, Lalitpur, but to no avail, then, it was submitted before the Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur, and after that this complaint was lodged for offences, punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC, upon which, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A.), Laliput, took cognizance and got complaint examined, under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. Complainant, Hariom, in his statement, has reiterated contention of complaint. Further enquiry was made by the Presiding Judge, wherein, witness Lokendra and Sonu etc. were examined, who two supported version of the complainant and on the basis of statements of the complainant and other witnesses, impugned summoning order, dated 7th September, 2019 was passed in which applicants were summoned for offences, punishable, under Section 395 and 397 of Cr.P.C. The impugned summoning order was came to be passed by the Presiding Judge on the basis of evidences collected on an enquiry being made by him, factual analysis of which cannot be made by this Court at this stage by exercise of power, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in view of law propounded by the Apex Court, in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767: 2010 Cr. LJ 3844, has propounded that "While exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable apprehension of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge/Court". In another subsequent Hamida v. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474, hon'ble Apex Court propounded that "Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 at an interlocutory stage which after filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed procedure, or to delay the trial which enable to win over the witness or may disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately resulting in miscarriage of Justice". In again another subsequent Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781, the Apex Court has propounded "Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself." While interpreting this jurisdiction of High Court Apex Court in Popular Muthiah v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296 has propounded "High Court can exercise jurisdiction suo motu in the interest of justice. It can do so while exercising other jurisdictions such as appellate or revisional jurisdiction. No formal application for invoking inherent jurisdiction is necessary. Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised in respect of substantive as well as procedural matters. It can as well be exercised in respect of incidental or supplemental power irrespective of nature of proceedings". ;