Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Jan 31: The High Court today held that it has inherent powers to prevent any abuse of powers by any Court to secure the ends of justice but in rarest of rare cases.
Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey while hearing a petition seeking quashing of proceeding taken by the trial court in a compliant has held that it has inherent powers of preventing abuse of process of any Court with regard to allegation made in the First Information Report (FIR) or the complaint.
“…Even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused or where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable as no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused”, Justice Magrey said.
Court, however, said, if it finds that a criminal prosecution is otherwise justifiable and based upon evidence, it will not be vitiated even on account of malafides or vendetta of the first informant or the complainant. “For the purposes of finding whether a prosecution is justifiable it has been held to be impermissible for the High Court to look into materials, for, the acceptability of it is essentially a matter for trial”, Court said.
Justice Magrey further added that at the stage where charge is framed, the Court has to only prima facie be satisfied about the existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and for that limited purpose it can evaluate material and documents on record, but it cannot appreciate the evidence, and that at this stage, the Court cannot judge the sufficiency or otherwise of the ground for proceeding as the same is beyond the power of the High Court.
Underscoring the Supreme Court ruling wherein it is held that the High Court should not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry as to reliability of evidence to sustain the allegations which is the function of the Trial Judge.
It is also laid down that High Court cannot substitute its own view for the prima facie satisfaction arrived at by a trial Magistrate. It has repeatedly been held that power to quash proceedings at the initial stage has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, and that it is not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging.
Court said, if factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint, the Court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings. The judgments referred in support of arguments, Court said, make things crystal clear, leaving no score for this Court to elaborate on any point.
Justice Magrey after having gone through the trial court record convinced that this is a case where the allegations made in the complaint do prima-facie constitute the offences and make out a case against the accused, and that the allegations made in the complaint are not absurd.
Before concluding the judgment, Court deem it necessary to refer to and deal with the argument made that medical records do not constitute property and that, even if that be so, it belongs to the patient, not to the Doctor.
“What constitutes criminal breach of trust for which punishment is prescribed under Section 406 RPC is stipulated in Section 405 RPC. Section 405 RPC does not define property”, court recorded.
“In light of all what has been discussed above, this petition is dismissed together with the connected interim application, if any. The subsisting interim direction(s), if any, shall stand vacated”, Court concluded.
Court however, made it clear that any observation made in the judgment shall not form the basis for deciding the complaint by the trial Magistrate and the complaint shall be decided exclusively on merits.
The petition under Section 561-A Cr. P. C, was filed seeking dismissal of the criminal complaint and quashment of order dated 23.09.2017, whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, took cognizance of the offences under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 417 (cheating), 469 (forgery for the purpose of harming reputation), 471 (using a forged document as genuine), 500 (defamation) and 506 criminal intimidation) of RPC and ordered issue of bailable warrants for securing presence of the accused.
The case of the petitioners (accused in the complaint) is that they are not satisfied with the complaint filed by complainant, with a view to wreaking vengeance and harassing accused, by filing the instant, impugned complaint against him, and other petitioners and concocting a false and fabricated story of which they have no knowledge, nor are they related to the functioning of the respondent’s clinic.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel