Harbans Kour and Others vs Surjeet Singh and Another

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Judge

(Cr MP No. 46 OF 2011)

Petitioners herein have sought quashment of proceedings drawn in a complaint pending before Sub-Judge (Judicial Magistrate) 1st Class,

Jammu under sections 452 & 323 RPC, titled as Surjeet Singh & another vs. Inderjeet Singh & others, on the grounds taken in the petition. It

appears that a complaint came to be filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, was transferred to Sub Judge (Judicial Magistrate) 1st

Class, Jammu. Preliminary statements of complainants as well as witnesses were recorded and cognizance and process was drawn vide order

dated 12.10.2010 for the commission of offences u/s 452 and 323 RPC and is pending on the dockets of said court. After lapse of more than 1=

years, petitioners herein have sought quashment of complaint and the proceedings drawn on the ground that the grievance projected in the

complaint is of civil nature.

It is apt to reproduce Section 561-A Cr.P.C herein:

561-A. Saving of inherent power of High Court.

Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give

effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

This remedy can be invoked/ pressed into service or may be exercised in the following circumstances:-

i) To pass orders in order to give effect to an order passed under Cr.P.C;

ii) to prevent abuse of process of Court;

iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice; and

iv) to prevent mis-carriage of justice.

Keeping in view the allegations contained in the complaint, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the case of petitioner falls within the

ambit/contours of Section 561-A Cr.P.C.

Apex Court in the cases reported in R.P. Kapur Vs. The State of Punjab, ; AIR 1964 SC 01; Hazari Lal Gupta Vs. Rameshwar Prasad and

Another, etc., ; Jehan Singh Vs. Delhi Administration, ; State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, ; Kurukshetra University and Another

Vs. State of Haryana and Another, ; State of Bihar and Another Vs. J.A.C. Saldanha and Others, ; Dhanalakshmi Vs. R. Prasanna Kumar and

Others, ; State of Bihar and Another Vs. P.P. Sharma, IAS and Another, ; State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, ; Mrs.

Rupan Deol Bajaj and another Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another, ; State of U.P. Vs. O.P. Sharma, ; Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (Govt. of

N.C.T. of Delhi) and Another, ; State of Kerala and Others Vs. O.C. Kuttan and Others, ; Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State NCT of Delhi and Others, ;

State of Karnataka Vs. M. Devendrappa and Another, ; State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Golconda Linga Swamy and Another, ; State of U.P. and

Others Vs. Ram Bachan Tripathi, ; AIR 2008 SCW 1003; AIR 2008 SCW 1993; AIR 2008 SCW 1998; AIR 2008 SCW 4614; AIR 2008

SCW 7680; AIR 2008 SCW 2778; M.N. Ojha and Others Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav and Another, has discussed the scope of Section 561-A

Cr.P.C corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C of Central Code and has laid down the tests.

Apex Court also held that power is to be exercised cautiously, carefully and sparingly and Court has not to function as a Court of appeal or

revision. It has also laid down the parameters and guidelines in cases titled as K.L.E. Society & Ors. Vs. Siddalingesh reported in AIR 2008

SCW 1993; A.P. Vs. Bajjoori Kanthaiah reported as AIR 2008 SCW 7860 and Reshma Bano Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 2008

SCW 1998.

I have examined the complaint and the statements recorded. It appears that the cognizance drawn and the process issued cannot be said to be

abuse of process of law. In the given circumstances, no case is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed along with all CrMPs.