The High Court, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., refused to quash prosecution proceedings for cheating and criminal intimidation due to factual disputes. However, the Court allowed the aged accused to be absent from trial dates.
Presence of accused A.3 and A.4 dispensed with on adjournment dates; petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.10994 of 2009
ORDER:
This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A.3 and A.4 in C.C.No.854 of 2009 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the alleged offences.
The learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the material available on record is prima facie sufficient to proceed further against the petitioners.
A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners are facing trial in C.C.No.854 of 2009 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 I.P.C.
As per the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioners concealed the love affair of their daughter i.e., A.2 and performed her marriage with the son of the first respondent.
Learned counsel for both parties submitted that the first respondent and the petitioners are blood relatives.
The learned Magistrate, after satisfying himself with the material placed before him, has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 420 and 506 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality or irregularity while taking cognizance of the offences so as to interfere. The various queries raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners involve complexity of disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into while exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. If this Court expresses any opinion touching the merits of the main case, the same may cause prejudice to either of the parties to the proceedings.
I n Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“At the outset the following principles may be noticed in relation to the exercise of inherent power of the High Court, which have been followed ordinarily and generally, almost invariably, barring a few exceptions.
1. That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party;
2. That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice;
3. That it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.”
In Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu Vs. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
13. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. It cannot be used if it is inconsistent with specific provisions provided under the Code (vide Kavita v. State {2000 Cri LJ 315 (Del)} and B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana {(2003) 4 SCC 675}. If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers under this section, specially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the ratio laid down in the cases cited supra, I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at the pre-trial stage.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners, who are old persons, are facing much difficulty to attend the trial Court on each and every date of adjournment. Hence, their presence may be dispensed with.
The criminal case is pending in Visakhapatnam where as the petitioners are residents of Hyderabad. There is no dispute with regard to the identity of the petitioners. Even if the presence of the petitioners is dispensed with, no prejudice will be caused to the first respondent.
Hence, the presence of the petitioners, who are accused Nos.3 and 4 in C.C.No.854 of 2009 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, is hereby dispensed with on each and every date of adjournment. However, they shall appear before the trial Court as and when their presence is so required.
With the above observation, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J
Date: 06.11.2014 Ivd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the pre-trial proceedings under Sections 420 and 506 IPC in the present case ought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the presence of aged accused persons, who are distant from the trial court, should be dispensed with.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madhu Limaye Vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶10
Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra
Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu Vs. Kovvuri Satyanarayana ReddyReferred¶17
Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu Vs. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy
Kavita v. StateReferred¶18
Kavita v. State {2000 Cri LJ 315 (Del)} · Who else cites this
B.S. Joshi v. State of HaryanaReferred¶18
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana {(2003) 4 SCC 675} · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A.3 & A.4 (Petitioners)
First Respondent
T.SUNIL CHOWDARY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
