JAIVINDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") has been preferred with a sole prayer that Courts below be directed to consider bail application of applicant, on the same day, pursuant to first information report dated 26.5.2014 (Case Crime No.69 of 2014) under Section 498-A, 323, I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act) registered at P.S. Mahila Thana, District Bulandshahr, in the light of decision of this Court in Smt.Amarawati and Anr. Vs. State of U.P.,2004 57 AllLR 390 as approved by Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 3 ADJ 322.

(2.) I am required to consider whether such an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer, as aforesaid, is entertainable. The scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C., as is evident from a bare reading of aforesaid provision, can be culled out from the provision itself, which reads as under:

(3.) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in a routine manner, but it is for limited purposes, namely, to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Time and again, Supreme Court and various High Courts, including ours one, have reminded when exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be justified, which cannot be placed in straight jacket formula, but one thing is very clear that it should not preampt a trial and cannot be used in a routine manner so as to cut short the entire process of trial before the Courts below. If from a bare perusal of first information report or complaint, it is evident that it does not disclose any offence at all or it is frivolous, collusive or oppressive on the face of it, the Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but it should be exercised sparingly. This will not include as to whether prosecution is likely to establish its case or not, whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, accusation would not be sustained, or the other circumstances, which would not justify exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I need not go into various aspects in detail but it would be suffice to refer a few recent authorities dealing all these matters in detail, namely, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp1 SCC 335, Popular Muthiah Vs. State Inspector of Police, 2006 7 SCC 296, Hamida vs. Rashid @ Rasheed and Ors., 2008 1 SCC 474, Dr. Monica Kumar and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Ors., 2008 8 SCC 781, M.N. Ojha and Ors. Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav and Anr., 2009 9 SCC 682, State of A.P. vs. Gourishetty Mahesh and Ors., 2010 6 JT 588 and Iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola Incorporated and Ors., 2011 1 SCC 74.