REKHA @ DEVPAL Vs. SUHAGWANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this criminal miscellaneous petition under Sec. 482, Crimial P.C. the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.10.1996 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, Anupgarh in Criminal Complaint Case No. 923/96 whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence punishable under Sec. 380, I.RC. against the petitioner.

(2.) On 4.6.1996, complainant-respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for offence under Sec. 380, I.RC. on the allegations that the petitioner is here daughter-in-law and her son Pannalal @ Naresh Pal, husband of the petitioner, was a mental patient and as such he was advisee complete bed rest. Her son used to remain under heavy sleep for most of the time. The petitioner was instigated by co-accused who are brothers, sister and mother of the petitioner (not before this Court) that her husband used to remain sick and, therefore, It was useless for her to stay with her In-laws any longer and, therefore, petitioner Rekha @ Devpal left her matrimonial house taking away with her items of jewellery, amount In cash and certain fixed deposit receipts. The complainant was informed about the incident by her son whereupon she along with her son Nareshpal (husband of the petitioner) and two other relative is went to petitioners Dhani where her son Pannalal (Nareshpal) lay on a cot and fell into deep slumber. The accused petitioner exhorted them to be gone and told that they would not let him (Pannalal) go. Thereafter, according to the complainant, the petitioner falsely implicated her son Pannalal (Nareshpal) in criminal case and got him arrested. While In judicial custody, Pannalal expired. On these allegations, the complainant accused the petitioner of having committed offence under Sec. 380, I.RC. After hearing arguments, the Court below prima facie found the case of the complainant made out only against the petitioner and, accordingly, took cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Sec. 380, I.RC. However, no prima facie case was found against the non-petitioner No. 2 to 7 named in the complainant.

(3.) This Court would normally act on the principle that powers under Sec. 482, Cr.RC. should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when non- interference may result in manifest injustice or when there is evident abuse of the process of court. It is settled law that inherent powers of this Court under Sec. 482, Cr.RC. is meant of prevent failure of justice or abuse of the process of court. The Courts jurisdiction under Sec. 482, Cr.RC. Is not akin to exercise of revisionary jurisdiction and, therefore, until It Is established on record that manifest injustice would be occasioned in the event of non-interference or that there is apparent abuse of the process of court, this Court would not interfere In exercise of jurisdiction under Sec. 482, Cr.RC. Thus, exercise of inherent power under Sec. 482, Crimial P.C. by this Court should be limited to very extreme exceptions being available under the Code of Criminal Procedure to this Court to prevent abuse of the process of court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.