K.N. Ojha, J.
1. Heard Sri Shamsher Singh, learned Counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and have gone through the record.
2. Instant application has been moved by Ram Kishun, S/o Siddh Gopal, Siddh Gopal, Smt. Mithania, W/o Siddh Gopal and Ram Sanehi, all residents of Village Pailani Dera, police station Pailani, district Banda, Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) to quash order dated 20.10.2005 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Banda, whereby application moved by O.P. No. 3, Ram Kishore, under Section 156(3) of the Code was allowed and direction was made to the Station Officer, police station Jaspura to make investigation in the case crime No. C-5 of 2005 Under Section 498A, 304B I.P.C. police station Pailani, district Banda, and to submit report. The further request has been made to Stay the arrest of the applicants during pendency of the investigation.
3. The fact of the case as disclosed from the record is that O.P. No. 3 Ram Kishore moved application against the applicants Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the Court A.C.J.M. Banda containing the fact that his sister Smt. Sunita was married with Ram Kishun, applicant No. 1 about six years before. Presents were given according to financial status of the complainant but when Smt. Sunita went to the residence of the applicants 1, 2 & 3 they started to cause torture on the ground that colour TV, buffalo and Rs. 10,000/- were not given. When the complainant went to the residence of Smt. Sunita she told about the exercise cruelty made on her. Smt. Sunita came back to her father's residence and narrated the grievances of the applicants 1 to 3 to her father, Her father went to the residence of the applicants 1 to 3 and made 'request that his financial position was not so sound that he could give these particles and made request that his daughter be accommodated in the family. I Applicant Ram Kishun alongwith his Mausiya Ram Sanehi went to the residence of the complainant on 12.6.2005 and anyhow persuaded the complainant and his family members to send Smt, Sunita, consequently Smt. Sunita was sent with them to the residence of her husband. But the torture caused by the family members of her husband continued. One Chandra Raj of village Mawai Ghat went to the residence of the complainant on 25.7.2005 and informed that Smt. Sunita had requested to bring her back to her father's residence. The complainant alongwith his father went to the residence of the respondents 1 to 3 but they found that dead body of Smt. Sunita was lying on a cot on 30.7.2005 at 7.00 P.M. In the application moved Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the allegation was made that poison was administered by the applicants to Smt. Sunita. Consequently the complainant moved application to Station Officer, police station Pailani, Superintendent of Police Banda and Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, but no action was taken against the accused persons. They threatened if any legal action taken against them. This was the reason for moving application Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the complainant the impugned order dated 20.10.2005 was passed. Aggrieved there from instant application has been moved Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
5. Learned AGA submits that if an order Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is passed by a Magistrate, there is a specific provision Under Section 397 Cr.P.C. which contemplates as under:
397. Calling for records to exercise of powers of revision.-(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety or any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentente or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.
5. It is submitted by the learned AGA that since there is a specific provision of revision, hence revision was to be preferred against the order instead of seeking remedy Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. Section 482 Cr.P.C. contemplates as below:
482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers 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,
7. The learned Counsel for the applicants relies on 2001(42) ACC 443, Surendra Nath Singh @ Bharat Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr. The para 10 of the judgment lays down as below:
10. The other case that is cited by Sri Girdhar Nath relates to an interlocutory order. According to him, order directing issuance of process is not an interlocutory order and, therefore, amenable to revisional jurisdiction. He thereby contends that this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. No doubt the learned Counsel for the applicant could have preferred a revision also, but merely because they have preferred an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it cannot be gainsaid that this Court is precluded from entering into the controversy in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. These, technicalities should not come in the way of this Court in deciding this application. The question raised before this Court is of general importance and it can be gone into by the Court under this jurisdiction also. The issue, therefore is decided accordingly.
8. The learned Counsel for the applicants further lays emphasis on Section 482 Cr.P.C. which contemplates that nothing in Criminal Procedure Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers 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. It means if interest of justice requires even though there is specific provision but the order can be passed. In instant case the prayer has been made to quash the order dated 20.10.2005. The question is as to whether relief could be granted by the revisional Court or not. Since revision lies against the order, hence even revisional Court is competent to set aside the order dated 20.10.2005 passed by the learned Additional C.J.M. Now question is as to whether the application moved , Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable when specific statutory remedy provided Under Section 397 of the Code has not been availed of.
9. In : [1952]1SCR583 , G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Ltd. Hon'ble the Apex Court while dealing with power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has held in para 20 of the judgment as below:
Such writs as are referred to in Article 226 are obviously intended to enable the High Court to issue then in grave cases where the subordinate tribunals or bodies or officers act wholly without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or in violation of the principles of natural justice or refuse to exercise a jurisdiction vested in them, or there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and such act, omission, error, or excess has resulted in manifest injustice. However, extensive the jurisdiction may be, it seems to us that it is not so wide or large as to enable the High Court to convert itself into a Court of appeal or examine for itself the correctness of the decisions impugned and decide what is the proper view to be taken or the order to be made.
10. In the above cited case of permit it was further held that when remedy for the redress of grievance or the correction of errors are found in the Statute itself and it is in the nature of appeal or revision generally these remedies should be first availed of and extraordinary remedy should not be sought for.
11. In : AIR1999SC22 , Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Ors.. it was held by Hon'ble the Apex Court that when an alternative statutory remedy exists, it is not constitutional bar to High Court jurisdiction but there is a self-imposed restriction that first statutory remedy should be availed of, thereafter the forum of extraordinary remedy should be sought for. It was further held that alternative remedy would not operate as bar in at least three contingencies:
(1) Where the writ seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights.
(2) Where there is violation of principles of natural justice.
(3) Where the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction and vires of an Act is challenged.
12. It was also held in this case that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution. The High Court has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Apex Court not to operate as a bar in at least the abovementioned three contingencies.
13. The law laid down in the case is that when an effective relief can be granted by a Court, which has specific power under the Statute, the remedy Should be sought for from the Court rather than seeking remedy under inherent jurisdiction or extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court.
14. In : AIR1999SC2859 , Sheela Devi v. Jaspal Singh, it was laid down by Hon'ble me Apex Court that no reason was given by the respondents for not availing of the remedy of revision Under Section 18 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. In this case the respondents straight way filed a writ petition before the High Court and the High Court re-examined the fact and passed the order. The order passed by the High Court was set aside and the Hon'ble Apex Court directed that the jurisdiction was wrongly exercised by the High Court on the question of fact when alternative statutory remedy of revision was available with the respondents.
15. In 1997 (34) ACC 395, Krishnan and Ors. v. Krishnaveni and Anr. it was laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court that High Court has suonotu powers and supervisory jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of process to meet the ends of justice and High Court can exercise its inherent powers Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
16. Thus from the law laid down by this Court and Hon'ble the Apex Court it is manifestly clear that in normal course the remedy provided in Statute should be sought and if extraordinary remedy of this Court Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is sought for, there should be reason as why the statutory remedy was not being sought for by the applicant. In instant case it is submitted that direction for investigation has been made, even in the case of applicant No. 4, who is mere relation of applicants 1, 2 & 3 and he cannot be the beneficiary of the dowry. The allegation against him is that at one occasion he alongwith applicant No. 1, the husband of the victim went to the residence of the father of the victim, persuaded her father and she was sent with her husband and the applicant No. 4. It is further submitted that the applicant No. 4 did never live with the family member' of the husband nor he has any concern with the family. If he had accompanied the husband in good faith just to get the dispute compromised and persuaded the father of the victim to send her at her husband's residence, it does not mean that the applicant No. 4 had any common intention to cause torture to the victim, if the demand for dowry was not satisfied. It is submitted that when order of investigation has been passed this circumstance was to be considered by the learned Magistrate that the applicant No. 4 is not the family member of the applicant No. 1 and without applying the mind and without any speaking order the application was allowed hence this Court can quash the impugned order and can stay the arrest of the applicants. Considering the contention the application moved Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is being considered on merit. But before the order is passed it would be relevant to specify as what power this Court has got Under Section 482 Cr.P.C, and in which circumstance the order passed by the Court below can be set aside under inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
17. In 1996 (33) ACC 421, State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma, it was held by Hon'ble the Apex Court that inherent power should be sparingly and cautiously exercised by the High Court while quashing the FIR and he should be loathe to interfere at the threshold to thwart prosecution. With this observation the order of quashing FIR by the High Court was set aside,
18. In 1999 (39) ACC 815, Satvinder Kaur v. State, it has been laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court that if an offence is disclosed the Court will normally not interface with the an investigation and FIR or complaint is not to be quashed. While quashing FIR or complaint mere allegation made in it is to be considered. Appreciation of evidence is the function of the Court, which is seized of the matter and not Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
19. In 1999 (38) ACC 503, State of Kerala and Ors. v. O.C. Kuttan and Ors. it has been laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court that when in a case Under Section 366A, 372, and 376/34 I.P.C. FIR was quashed by the High Court on the ground that the lady was more than 16 years of age at the time of the offence and she was a willing partner. The order passed by the Hiqh Court was set aside on the ground that to make fact finding about the age of the girl and thereafter exonerate the accused at the stage of investigation was not in accordance with law. As such appreciation of facts could not be made Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution.
20. In 2004 (50) ACC 249, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Goloconda Linga Swamy and Anr. it was laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court that interference at the threshold in the FIR is to be in very exceptional circumstances when it is found that FIR does not disclose the commission of the offence. Such power should be exercised sparingly and in rarest of the rare case.
21. In instant case it is not denied that Smt. Sunita was married with the applicant No. 1, Ram Kishun. It is not denied that she died at the age of 24 years. Postmortem examination report shows that her each organ of the body was normal and did not suffer from any serious ailment. Even the inquest report shows that in the opinion of the Punch viscera was required to be preserved for being sent to chemical examiner to ascertain the cause of 1 death. The allegation of the applicants that marriage took place seven years before the occurrence or at the time of preparation of inquest report the family members of the deceased were present and no objection was raised are facts, which can be ascertained at the stage of evidence and at this stage it is only to be ascertained as to whether the ingredients of the offences Under Section 498A or 304B I.P.C. are made out or not.
22. Considering the allegations made Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. inquest report, postmortem examination report, the allegation of the complainant that FIR was not written inspite of his best effort, though he moved application to the Superintendent of police and National Human Rights commission and other circumstances of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that the ingredients of the above mentioned offences are not made out. Therefore, if the learned Magistrate has passed order for making investigation in the case and for submission of report, no illegality or injustice has been-done.
23. It may be significant to mention that while passing order to make investigation the application Under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is not to be simply allowed. The Magistrate has to apply his mind.
24. In 2001 (43) ACC 50, Ram Babu Gupta v. State of U.P. and Ors. it was held by a Full Bench of this Court that the Magistrate has to apply his mind to the allegations of the complainant. Application of judicial mind is necessary about the involvement of the accused in a case.
25. In 1995 (32) ACC 253, Raj Kumar Agrawal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. it was held by this Court that the provisions relating to the arrest of the accused persons during investigation have been made with the object of faciliting the investigation and not with the object of punishing the person concerned by depriving him of his fundamental right of liberty before his guilt is proved.
26. In the case of Smt. Amrawati and Ors. v. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 398 it was held by a Full Bench of this Court that arrest of accused during investigation is to be made when it is justified and it is not to be necessarily made merely because the offence is cognizable.
27. It is not denied that the applicant No. 4, Ram Sanehi, who is relation of the applicants 1, 2 and 3, was not made opposite party in the application Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. nor any specific demand of dowry was alleged to have been made by him. The case of the applicant Ram Sanehi is that he does not belong to the family of the applicants 1, 2 & 3 and he lives separate from them and he has no concern with the dowry. Hence it would be proper and in the interest of justice that Ram Sanehi is not arrested till the submission of the report. So far as the case of the husband Ram Kishun, father-in-law Siddh Gopal and mother-in-law Mithania is concerned there is specific allegation of causing torture for demand of dowry, The allegation of the complainant is that cruelty was exercised in such a manner that Smt. Sunita met her unnatural death at the residence of the applicants 1, 2 & 3 because the demand for dowry was not satisfied. Therefore, there appears no illegality or injustice if investigation is made in compliance of the order passed by the Magistrate and the Investigating Officer discharges his duty according to his discretion as required by circumstances and evidence collected during investigation.
28. The application moved Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash impugned order dated 20.10.2005 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Court No. 10, Banda, is dismissed. However, it is directed that the accused applicant No. 4 Ram Sanehi will not be arrested in the crime till submission of report Under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
29. The application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of accordingly.