Prateek Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Another on 6 August, 2019
| Case Name: | Prateek Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Another on 6 August, 2019 |
| Equivalent Citation: | Prateek Gupta vs. State of UP and Another, (2019) Application U/S 482 No. 24770 of 2019 |
| Date of Judgment: | 6 August, 2019 |
| Court: | High Court of Allahabad |
| Case no.: | Application U/S 482 No. – 24770 of 2019 |
| Case Type: | Application U/S |
| Applicant: | Prateek Gupta |
| Opposite Party: | State of U.P. and Another |
| Bench: | Sanjay Kumar Singh |
| Referred: | Section 482 Cr.P.C. |
Facts of the case
The case features the applicant Prateek Gupta and his wife Monica Jindal, who were married on 5 December, 2015. But due to their acrimonious relations, various litigations were filed. The case in question is the application filed by Prateek Gupta under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order dated 6 March, 2019, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh. The order rejected the applicant’s discharge application before the Magistrate of the cases against the accused under various sections of Indian Penal Code (IPC), Dowry Prohibition Act, and Information Technology Amendment Act. The aforesaid case was filed by Prateek Gupta’s Father-in-law (Monica Jindal’s Father) against him and nine other family members. This application was hence registered seeking to quash the previous order rejecting to discharge all these allegations. The applicant facing the said allegations, in turn, contended that the case against him discloses no offence and lacks merit. The applicant stated that the allegation have been registered for the purpose of harassment and is hence, malicious prosecution. The court, however, dismissed this application stating various important statutory provisions that are to be taken into consideration while dealing with criminal cases. The court laid out that the Magistrate did not have any jurisdiction in the matter of discharge of Prateek Gupta since the beginning. As it is a criminal case, it would fall under the original jurisdiction of Sessions Court and hence, should have been handed over to it by the Magistrate.
Issues Raised
- Whether there is sufficient evidence to establish an offence against the applicant
- Has the prosecution been instituted with malicious intent for harassment
- Was the Magistrate’s rejection of discharge application valid
- Does the Magistrate have legal jurisdiction of a criminal case matter or the Sessions Court.
Contentions by the Applicant
- The Supplementary report submitted by the ivestigating officer exempts all other accused persons except the applicant, Prateek Gupta for Section 498 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
- The proceedings instituted against the applicant are done with a malicious intent for harassment.
- No offence against the applicant has been made out.
- Proofs and Documents were provided by the applicant to support the above contentions.
Contentions by the State
- There is enough evidence to establish offences against the applicant under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 307, 328, 427, 316 of IPC, 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and Section 66 of Information Technology Amendment Act.
Judgment Pronounced
The court on hearing the contentions by both sides, analysed various judgements of the Supreme Court on similar matters and looked into the relevant statutory provisions. It held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to discharge Prateek Gupta. The court stated that the Magistrate has only limited power of committing the case to the Sessions Court if the police report indicates that case is triable by the sessions court. The Magistrate hence is not empowered to discharge the accused once the offence is cognizable by the Sessions Court. The court mentioned that cognizance can be taken only once. And part cognizance by the Magistrate and part by Sessions Judge is not valid. The Magistrate should commit the case to Sessions Court and it assumes the original jurisdiction thereupon. The court also upheld the validity of the order dated 6 March, 2019 stating that it does not find any manifest error of law in the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh. Hence, the application filed by Prateek Gupta under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
However, the court did provide the applicant with relief by directing that no coercive action would be taken against him for a period of 45 days or until he surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier. The court also upheld the order by the Sessions Judge. It, though, refused to comment on the merits of the case and stated that the case and proceedings should not be affected by the High Court’s judgement in any manner. The court took into consideration judgments of the Apex Court in many cases and gave its verdict in accordance with it after careful and thorough examination of the facts. The court held that the application by the applicant did not hold any merit and hence, is dismissed. He can make use of the remedies available to him subsequently and can put forth the arguments in the case brought upon by the prosecution in the Sessions Court. And the aforesaid case will not be influenced in any way by this Judgement.
Conclusion
Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) preserved the inherent powers vested in the High Court to prevent the abuse of process of any court and secure the ends of Justice. It works to secure the powers already vested with the court rather than conferring any new powers. In this case however, the court did not find any manifest error of law in the order of the Judicial Magistrate and hence, dismissed the applicant’s contentions to quash the order. The judgement of the High Court of Allahabad emphasizes on the limited role of the Magistrate in cases that are triable by the Sessions Court. The court highlights that in a case that falls under the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court, the Magistrate cannot discharge the accused and must commit the case to the Sessions Court. The case serves as a reminder of the need for a careful consideration of statutory provisions and established legal principles and their cautious application when dealing with criminal cases at various stages of the legal process. The courts’ relief granted to the applicant in regards with procedure to give him a period of 45 days in which there can not be any coercive action against or until he surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier shows a balanced approach taken by the court.
It is a vital case to the provision of Section 482 of Indian Penal Code that is not seen very often but plays an important role in the procedure of criminal cases. The court along with the judgement upholding the Judicial Magistrate’s order, stated that its judgement would not affect the prosecution against the applicant and it will continue in Sessions Court.
References
Jagriti Dwivedi of Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, An intern under Legal Vidhiya.
