Sandeep And Others v. Sunita And Another
!
"# $"%&'() !) *
+,- './ ( ,
"#)"
)!"$ "$))!") 1
2 (
!)"
)!"$
) , %)"
)!"$
+,- '.$/)3
4 "%)")!"$"
))!"$!)!)!"$%)")!" ! )"!)!" $")"
)!" )"%)!" !#)" )!" "
))!" "!)")!" !#)"!)!" !")"$)!" )"
)!" "!)"#)!" )1 ( ")"
)!" 5.
Present: None for the complainant Today the case was fixed for complainant evidence. Case called several times since morning, but despite several calls, neither the Counsel nor the parties have appeared before the Court. The cost of Rs. 1000/# was imposed on the complainant which was also not paid by the complainant. It is already 3.00 PM. Further wait is not justified. Hence, the present complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed in default for want of prosecution. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance."
$) * - 6) 6) $!"
$"% !
!".7&'( ! , ,
"%)"
)!"
- +,- '. /) (8.% 0 4 9
(8.# -
): "#)"!)!" 0&(
! "#&'( $"% &'(
)1
+,- '.
/
6) (
")"#)!"!$
$"%&'(
) * 6)
);
< )
) * 6) ( (=0.0.$%$!#!"
2&= ) > )"%)!"! ! )"
)!"$
?
)1
( ) ;
? );
(
!"( )')() ) * ( $"%&'(
$ ( )')()>
-
);
) ,
)&
(8#0 49
4 )(<3 ) @ ?
(8.#0 49
+4 / -
%)$"
) ) "$))!" )) 4
2 * 0 )1 2* ;- (8
;
-
) * 2* +,- '. /
4 (8.# 49
. 4 )1 )
#) * (
(8.# 0 4 9
)A )"%)!""
(8.#0 49
= ? 4
.
)1 > A 4
)(<2&=6)!$$ )"%)!""
$!$
!%
!
$"% "#&'( ! , ,
(8# 0 4 9
) 2 = ? 6
.
> !")(8#0 49
= ? 4 ?
? ); = ?
? 0 4 9
? = ? = ? ) ; 2&=
(8#0 4)1 ( ) %) A 6)
< ) , 4 (8#0 4. ) >
? 4
.)
(8 ,&3 . )
) *
(
)
) & ) ) & 6) ? %5"" ) ) "$))!"
0 4 0 4
0 4
0 4 ? )&
0
0B3 @ 9
B9
0 B'
B, 9
? ) +,- './
( , 0 "#)"
)!"$)
) ; - 6)
) !)"
)!"$ +,- './
+,- '.!/
), +,- '.$/
6)
)1
? 0 6) )>
6)
+,- '.$/
( 0 2 ( ")"
)!" .
6) +'. /
)1
(8% 0 49
4
-
(8#) ") 2 6) ) &
< (
)1 6) - - 4 )C
)
$ 6 !" -
( , 0
,- '.
) ) 6)
) +,- './ "#)"
)!"$ ) !)"
)!"$
? -
)
+,- '.$/%)"
)!"$ ),
0 ( D +,- '.
/
)C
, 0 ")"
)!" )1
6) +,- '. / "%)"
)!"
) 1 6) ) !)
!
"
# $%% &'
!( $ 5. "3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the record of the trial Court. It is to he noted that the occurrence in question had taken place on 7th May, 1974. The first complaint in respect thereof was filed by
% Amrik Singh against the four accused petitioners, as stated at the bar by the counsel for the petitioners on 22nd December, 1974. The same was dismissed in default of appearance of the complainant, when the accused were present in person on 8th September, 1975. The second complaint on the same facts and under the same sections, as it was in case of the first complaint, was filed against all the four accused persons on 16th September, 1975, Paras 7 and 8 of that complaint, which relates to the reason for non#appearance of the complainant on 8th September, 1975, when his first complaint was dismissed in default of his appearance read as under :
"7. That the complainant fell sick on 8th September, 1975 and should not attend this Court in this case. The case was dismissed in default due to his absence from the Court on that day.
8. That the complainant did not absent intentionally." The third complaint, i.e., the present one on the same facts and under the same sections, was filed by the aforesaid complainant on 2nd November, 1976. The reason given by him for his non# appearance in Court on 30th October, 1976, when his second complaint was dismissed in default of his appearance is contained in paras Nos. 7 and 8 of this third complaint which are verbatim copy of paras 7 and 8 of the second complaint excepting that the date of the complainant falling sick is given therein as 30th October, 1976. In other words, both in the second complaint and in the third complaint, the same reason of his falling ill was given by the complainant on the respective dates when the first and the second complaints were dismissed in default of his appearance.
No medical certificate or an affidavit was attached by the complainant in support of the averments made in those paras of both the second and the third complaints.
$ causing harassment to all the four accused#petitioners without taking any concreate steps for their prosecution. Accordingly, it can reasonably be said that there has been abuse of process of Court on as many as two occasions and consequently, the proceedings filed by the complainant against the four accused# petitioners for the hird time must be quashed by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in the interest of justice. This view finds support from the view taken by the High Court in
In that case, it was held as under : # "The inherent powers of the High Court can be exercised at any stage and in any case where it is necessary to give effect to any order under the Code of Criminal Procedure, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Ordinarily, the High Court will not interfere at an interlocutory stage of any proceedings pending before a subordinate Court, but in exceptional cases it may become necessary to do so for the reasons just mentioned. In view of the circumstances mentioned above, the present case is of such an exceptional case. The applicants had on three previous occasions been subjected to unnecessary harassment, and a similar attempt is being made again.
The applicants had intimated to the trial Court what had happened on the previous occasions at the earliest opportunity # as soon as they appeared in obedience to the summonses issued against them and when they were unsuccessful in the courts below, they have come upto this Court.
$$ many as three occasions, the sooner the proceedings are terminated the better in the interest of justice." This decision was given by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 561A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the equivalent of which is section 482 of the Code of 1973.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant#respondent has contended that plausible explanation for the non#appearance of the complainant on two dates when his previous two complaints were dismissed in default of appearance had been given by him in the subsequent complaint filed by him and that whatever delay occurred in prosecuting the same expeditiously it evident from the orders of the trial Court passed in each case and there#I fore, tins Court should be reluctant to exercise its is inherent powers under section 482. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. I find no merit in this contention of the learned counsel.
The conduct of the complainant#respondent in the present third complaint and also in the previous two complaints appears to be that he was not serious in prosecuting the same against the accused and his intention appeared to be of causing harassment to them. The alleged occurrence had taken place on 7th May, ,1974. Now, it is the last month of 1978. For such a long period, the accused#petitioners have been unnecessarily harassed by the complainant by launching three successive complaints against them without diligently prosecuting the same. Thus, it can safely be said that there has been abuse of the process of Court and.
therefore, it is a fit case in which the proceedings initiated against the petitioners on the basis of third complaint be quashed in the interest of justice by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 1973, as already observed above."
$)
0 4
$ )0 4
)1 4
? ) , .
-
? )&
?
) &
4 (8#0 44 .
(8.# 49
4 ?)& 2* +,- '. /
4
-
)1 4 < (8.#0 4 9
.4 ) ,
"
-
)!# )&
= ? .
);
?
$
D
) ) >E (
< F
!
" # $
% !,&= ( #"
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non#cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
$ provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
) & ( ( 6) $!"
$"%
!
!".7 "# ! , , F :0 4GA +,- '. /
#)"!)!" ( 0&(
+,- '.
/ ")"#)!"!$ +,- '."/ ,
<
< ) ' +/ ) ) ) *))+,-+ . !"
'/01, ? = 5 @; 6A = 5 @; 6A