High Court Does Not Function As Court Of Appeal Or Revision While Exercising Powers Under Inherent Jurisdiction: Uttarakhand High Court

Dismissing an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the accused, a bench comprising of Justice Alok Kumar Verma observed that

“This inherent jurisdiction though wide should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised in appropriate cases to do real and substantial justice. While exercising jurisdiction under this section, the Court does not function as a Court of Appeal or Revision.”

The application sought to quash the entire proceedings of a criminal case pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Garhwal. The High Court emphasized that its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC must be used sparingly to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice.

Background of the case:

The case revolved around a Vedic Sansthan formed in 1973 and registered in 1981. After the patron's death on October 23, 2011, a former driver of the Sansthan produced a will claiming himself as the heir and custodian of the patron's property. An FIR was lodged against him for producing a forged will, and he was charged under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Subsequent investigations revealed that the will was fake, and two civil suits were filed against him, which were decided in favour of the party challenging its authenticity. In 2019, a second FIR was lodged, accusing him of submitting forged documents during the renewal of the Society.

Assailing these proceedings Mr. Ramji Srivastava, representing the applicant, argued that the will dated August 30, 2010, was genuine and executed in favour of the applicant by Swami Hansraj, the patron of the Sansthan. He contended that the dispute was civil in nature, as two civil suits were already decided, and two Civil Appeals were still pending.

He further argued that the impugned FIR of 2019 contained similar allegations as the FIR of 2012 and was therefore barred by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 CrPC.

Additionally, he claimed that the criminal proceedings were instituted with malafide intentions and as a counter-blast to the criminal proceedings lodged by the applicant against the respondent.

Mr Pratiroop Pandey, for the State, and Mr Yash Mishra, for the respondent, contended that the second FIR was based on new facts concerning forged documents submitted during the renewal of the Society, distinct from the previous FIR.

They argued that the High Court should not interfere at this stage as the allegations disclosed a cognizable offence.

Court's Observations:

Upon analyzing the rival contentions the court pointed that the new FIR was based on new set of facts having no familarity with the allegations in the previous FIR and hence contention of violation ofArticle 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of the Code was without any substance.

Furthermore, the Court also noted that the dispute over the genuineness of the will was still pending in civil appeals, and the criminal proceedings could not be quashed on the grounds of the dispute being of a civil nature.

The Court also cited Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand and Others, (2013), emphasizing that civil disputes do not necessarily bar criminal proceedings, and observed,

“It is true that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy was available to the informant of the present FIR that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations disclose the criminal offence or not”.

Observing that the Court under its inherent jurisdiction would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of its accusation would not be sustained the court underscored,

“This is the function of the Trial Court. The correctness of the allegations can be adjudged only at the trial when evidence is adduced. This Court cannot hold a parallel trial in an Application under Section 482 of the Code”.

Justice Verma added,

“At this stage, it is not for this Court to enter into factual arena and decide whether the allegations are correct or whether the same are a counter – blast to any proceedings instituted by the applicant. This Court would not also examine the genuineness of the allegations since this Court does not function as a Court of Appeal or Revision, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code”

In alignment with these observations the court dismissed the application concluding that the criminal case should proceed to trial.

Case Title: Ravindra Brahamchari Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Utt) 14

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment