Uttaranchal High Court: The applicant-accused invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) to quash the entire proceedings of a criminal case pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Narendra Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal (‘the Trial Court’). Alok Kumar Verma, J., stated that the correctness of the allegations could be adjudged only at the trial when evidence was adduced, and this Court could not hold a parallel trial in an application under Section 482 of CrPC and it would not examine the genuineness of allegations since it did not function as a Court of Appeal or Revision, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. Thus, the Court refused to quash the entire proceedings.
Background
Sachcha Vedic Sansthan’s (‘Sansthan’) patron, Swami Hansraj died in 2011 and in the same year, the applicant, who was removed from the post of the driver of the Sansthan, produced a will stating that Maharaj ji had declared him as his heir and custodian of his property. In relation to the said alleged forged will, an FIR was lodged against the applicant, which was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). When the signature of Maharaj ji was examined, the said will was found to be fake.
The applicant formed a new Committee on 03-09-2013 and got it registered from the Registrar Office, Dehradun. Thereafter, the applicant lodged an FIR on 04-10-2016 that papers of his old Committee had fallen on the way. The applicant, along with a false affidavit, signed the balance sheet for the year 2013-2014, which was filed by Respondent 2, and filed it before the Deputy Registrar Office, Dehradun with an undertaking that remaining balance sheet would be filed within two months.
During the investigation, it was found that the applicant had registered his Society based on forged documents, therefore, a charge sheet was filed against him before the Trial Court. The FIR was lodged by Respondent 2, on 22-01-2019 and after submission of charge sheet, the Trial Court took cognizance and passed the summoning order against the applicant under Sections 420, 467, 468, and Section 471 of IPC.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that Section 482 of CrPC envisaged three circumstances in which the inherent jurisdiction might be exercised, namely, (a) to give effect to an order under the Code; or (b) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court; or (c) to secure the ends of justice.
The Court opined that the inherent jurisdiction though wide should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised but should be exercised in appropriate cases to do real and substantial justice. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC, the Court did not function as a Court of Appeal or Revision. Therefore, quashing of charge sheet or setting aside the summoning order on the appreciation of evidence was not justified.
The Court relied on Kaptan Singh v. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 580, wherein the Supreme Court observed that in Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191, after considering the decision of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, it was held that exercise of powers under Section 482 of CrPC to quash the proceedings was an exception and not a rule and that appreciation of evidence was not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 of CrPC.
The Court took note of the submission of applicant’s counsel that the offence alleged to have occurred in both the FIRs i.e., FIR No. 03 of 2012 and FIR No. 18 of 2019 were same and thus, the second FIR would not be permissible, and stated that FIR No. 03 of 2012 was registered in relation to forging and fabricating the will dated 30-08-2010 for which the applicant was convicted vide judgment dated 17-12-2022, whereas during the renewal of the Society, fake, forged, and fabricated documents were filed hence the present FIR i.e., FIR No.18 of 2019 was registered on the new set of facts. The Court opined that though there could not be a second FIR in respect of the same offence, but FIR No. 18 of 2019 was not connected with the offence alleged in FIR No. 03 of 2012.
The Court stated that the Trial Court took the cognizance after considering the evidence available on the record and when exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC, this Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence was reliable or not, or whether on a reasonable appreciation of its accusation would not be sustained as this was the function of the Trial Court.
The Court further stated that the correctness of the allegations could be adjudged only at the trial when evidence was adduced, and this Court could not hold a parallel trial in an application under Section 482 of CrPC. At this stage, it was not for this Court to enter the factual arena and decide whether the allegations were correct or whether the same were a counter to any proceedings instituted by the applicant. The Court also stated that it would not examine the genuineness of allegations since it did not function as a Court of Appeal or Revision, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC.
Thus, the Court dismissed the application and refused to quash the entire proceedings of a criminal case pending before the Trial Court.
[Ravindra Brahamchari v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 SCC OnLine Utt 1631, decided on 19-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Applicant: Advocate Ramji Srivastava
For the Respondents: AGA Pratiroop Pandey assisted by Brief Holder Rakesh Negi; Advocate Yash Mishra
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
