ARJAN NATH CHAKU Vs. DURGA PRASHAD BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under section 561 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing proceedings in a criminal complaint pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Second Additional Munsiff), Srinagar.

(2.) THE facts may be briefly stated: on 11 -8 -1975, Dr. Durga Prashad Bhat filed a Criminal complaint against his wife, Mrs. Usha Bhat, and her parents, Mr. and Mrs. A.N. Chaku, under sections 120 -B; 323 and 342 R.P.C. in the court of Judicial Magistrate (second Addl. Munsiff Srinagar. The substance of the complaint was that Usha Bhat conspired with the other accused persons to bring about severance of her marital tie with the complainant after procuring evidence of the complainant on his own admission to the effect that he was impotent; and, that, in furtherance of this conspiracy, her father, Mr. A.N. Chaku, who is posted as A.A.G in Calcutta, telephoned the complainant to come over to Calcutta on the false pretext that he wanted to discuss some urgent matters with him and, here, he acting in conjuction with Usha Bhat and another unknown person, kept him in wrongful confinement in a room bolted from inside, stripped off his clothes, beat and tortured him and, thereafter, obtained the desired admission from him in writing under his signatures at the point of gun. The learned Magistrate examined the complainant and his one witness, Mahraj Krishen and directed issue of process against the accused persons holding that, in his opinion, the alleged offences were prima facie made out against them. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Magistrate to issue process, Mr. A.N. Chaku has moved this court under section 561 -A for quashing the proceedings.

(3.) BEFORE dealing with the merits of the application let me decide a preliminary point. The point is whether the request for quashing the proceedings at the present stage of the complaint is covered by section 561 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The point arises out of the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties as regards the nature and scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 561 -A Cr. P.C. Mr. Raina, appearing for the complaint argued that the High Court has no jurisdiction to quash the proceedings at the present stage of the complaint when what has been done in simply that process has been issued against the accused persons, adding, that the court can exercise that powers only after the evidence has been recorded at the trial. In reply, Mr. Tessadque contended that there is no such restriction on the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction by the High court and that the court can quash the proceedings in a proper case at any stage thereof. Section 561 -A Cr. P.C. reads thus: "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."