JAMMU: In a significant judgment, Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul today dismissed petition filed by Nayeem Akhtar Andrabi Ex-Minister of PDP challenging the order of trial Court in defmation case filed by Ex-Chief Minister Omar Abdullah.
A complaint under Section 499 and 500 of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1932 AD, of erstwhile State of J&K (which is pari materia to Section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code)was filed by Public Prosecutor, Srinagar – respondent no.1 herein, against petitioner, before the court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Srinagar(for short “Trial Court”) on the grounds detailed therein. The Trial Court, while taking into account the allegations made in the complaint and the record concomitant therewith, took cognizance of the complaint and issued process vide order dated 29th September 2010, and bailable warrant in the amount of Rs.20,000/- each was issued for securing presence of the accused.
Nayeem Akhter Andrabi, feeling aggrieved of aforesaid complaint and the proceedings initiated thereon by the Trial Court, seeks quashment thereof on the edifice of case setup and grounds taken in petition on hand.
Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul after hearing both the sides in length observed that inherent powers cannot naturally be invoked with respect to any matter covered by specific provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is only where the High Court is satisfied either that an order passed under the Code would be rendered ineffective or that the process of any court would be abused or that ends of justice would not be secured, that the High Court can and must exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. This power can be invoked only in an event when aggrieved party is being unnecessarily harassed. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not intended to scuttle justice at threshold but to secure justice.
High Court further said that needless to say, that when exercising jurisdiction under Section 482of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on reasonable appreciation thereof, accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.and the categories of cases, where the High Court may exercise its power underit relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court orotherwise to secure ends of justice were set out in detail in the case ofBhajan Lal (supra). The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482Cr.P.C. are very wide and at the same time the power requires great caution inits exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise ofthis power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not beexercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.
With theseobservations High Court dismissed the petition with directions that parties toappear before Trial Court on July 20, 2020.
Thec ase that acomplaint has been moved by Omar Abdullah before the Trial Court under Section499, 500 RPC/IPC. While giving introduction of Mr Omar Abdullah, the then ChiefMinister of erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir, it is stated in the complaintthat on 25th August 2010, a Press Conference was held by petitioner andrespondent no.2, at the office of J&K Peoples Democratic Party, No.2,Circuit House, Emporium Lane, Residency Road, Srinagar, which was attended byseveral other members of the Party, including legislators of the StateLegislature as well as members of public and media persons. It is alleged thatduring aforesaid Press Conference, both petitioner and respondent no.2 havelevelled false and defamatory allegations against Mr Omar Abdullah, in presenceof journalists and reporters from print and electronic media, and several otherpersons. The complainant/respondent no. 1 has also averred that all suchallegations were not only defamatory but were made with an intention to defameMr Omar Abdullah. The details of defamatory allegations levelled against MrOmar Abdullah have been enumerated by complainant/respondent no.1 in thecomplaint. A number of contentious and triable facts and issues have been madein the complaint.
