Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dr. Ranchha Ram Chaudhary vs Suresh Singh Chaudhary ... on 13 September, 2023
Author: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
[2023:RJ-JD:29224]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4773/2023
Dr. Ranchha Ram Chaudhary S/o Shri Mahendrapal Singh, Aged
About 43 Years, R/o Ward No. 26, Nehru Nagar, Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Suresh Singh Chaudhary S/o Shri Balwant Singh
Chaudhary, Advocate, R/o Ward No. 26, Nehru Nagar,
Barmer.
2. Municipal Council, Barmer Through Its Commissioner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. adv. With
Mr. Rajesh Punia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumbhat
Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat
Mr. Indra Raj Choudhary
Ms. Aasu Devi
Mr. Aniket Beniwal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Judgment Reserved on 04/09/2023 Pronounced on 13/09/2023 01- ;kph }kjk ;g ;kfpdk fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; mi[k.M eftLVªsV] ckM+esj ds QkStnkjh eqdnek la[;k 91@2023 lqjs'kflag pkS/kjh cuke MkW vkj-vkj- pkS/kjh] vUrxZr /kkjk 133 lhvkj-ih-lh-] fu.kZ; fnukad 18-07-2023 ls O;fFkr gksdj ;g ;kfpdk vUrxZr /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds rgr izLrqr dh xbZ gSA 02- cgl ;kfpdk lquh xbZZA 03- fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd bl U;k;ky; esa lh/ks gh /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- dh dk;Zokgh vk{ksfir vkns'k fo:) dh tk ldrh gS fjohtu dk;Zokgh vyx ls dh tkuk vko';d ugha gSA ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk f'kdk;rdrkZ ds O;fDrxr fgr dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] dksbZ lkoZtfud fgr bl ekeys esa ugha gSA vkl&iM+kSl ds fdlh Hkh O;fDr;ksa dks fdlh izdkj dh U;wlsal ugha gks jgh gSA (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:50:23 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:29224] (2 of 12) [CRLMP-4773/2023] f'kdk;rdrkZ] ;kfpdkdrkZ ds ?kj ds lkeus fuokl ugha djrk gSA ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk lEifRr dk O;kolkf;d iV~Vk izkIr dj ikWY;w'ku daVªksy cksMZ dh vuqefr ls fof/kor rjhds ls fDyfud pyk;k tk jgk gS] ftlls fdlh dks U;wlsal ugha gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk vkns'k fof/kfo:) gksus ls fujLr fd, tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA ;ksX; vf/koDrk ;kfpdkdrkZ us vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fuEufyf[kr U;kf;d n`"Vkar 1. (2013) 15 SCC 624 Urmila Devi Vs. Yudhvir Singh, 2. (2020) 7 SCC 695 D. Devaraja Vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain, 3. 1999 Cr.L.R (Raj) 506 , G.B. Jain & Sons Vs. State Of Rajasthan & Anr. 4. (2005) 9 SCC 36 Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal And others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 5. 1995 Supp (4) SCC 54 Vasant Manga Nikumba And Others Vs. Baburao Bhikanna Naidu, is'k fd;sA 04- fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd ;kfpdkdrkZ v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ls O;fFkr gS] rks mlds fy, /kkjk 397 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds rgr fjohtu dh tk ldrh gSA /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds rgr lh/ks gh bl U;k;ky; esa dk;Zokgh ugha dh tk ldrhA dsoy ek= blh vk/kkj ij ;kfpdkdrkZ dh ;kfpdk [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa esjk /;ku ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar AIR 1977 SC 2185 Amar Nath And others Vs. state of Haryana And others, dh rjQ /;ku vkdf"kZr fd;k vkSj lkFk gh ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd ;kfpdkdrkZ ds }kjk tks d`R; fd;k tk jgk gS] mlesa fjgk;'kh bykds esa O;kolkf;d dk;Z fd;k tk jgk gSA ftlls ekSds ij dkQh HkhM+ yxh jgrh gS] vkl&ikl ds bykdksa esa U;wlsal iSnk gksrk gSA bl vk/kkj ij v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk vkns'k fof/klEer gksus ds vk/kkj ij iqf"V fd, tkus dk fuosnu fd;k vkSj vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa bl U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; Jagdish Vs The State of Rajasthan And others, (1997)CriLJ 3634 dh rjQ /;ku vkdf"kZr fd;kA 05- eSaus mi;qZDr rdksZa ij euu fd;k] izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dk llEeku v/;;u fd;kA bl izdj.k ds fuLrkj.k ds fy, loZizFke bl iz'u ij fopkj fd;k tk jgk gS fd bl ekeys esa /kkjk 397 lhvkj-ih-lh- dh dk;Zokgh fd, cxSj lh/ks gh /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- esa dk;Zokgh dh tk ldrh gS vFkok ughaA 06- /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds izko/kku ds laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa ij fopkj fd;k tk jgk gSA (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:50:23 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:29224] (3 of 12) [CRLMP-4773/2023] 07- fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr iwoZ esa of.kZr AIR 1977 SC 2185 Amar Nath And others Vs. state of Haryana And others okys ekeys esa Hkh /kkjk 397 ¼2½ o 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds izko/kkuksa ij fopkj fd;k x;k vkSj bl ekeys esa vihykFkhZx.k dks leu fd;k x;k Fkk] ml vkns'k dks Interlocutory Order ugha ekuk x;k Fkk vkSj ml vkns'k dks /kkjk 397¼1½ ;k 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds rgr pqukSrh fn, tk ldus dk fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k x;k FkkA bl U;kf;d n`"Vkar ds iSjk la[;k 3 esa fuEukuqlkj fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k x;k %&
3. While we fully agree with the view taken by the learned Judge that where a revision to the High Court against the order of the Subordinate Judge is expressly barred under sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the 1973 Code the inherent powers contained in Section 482 would not be available to defeat the bar contained in Section 397(2). Section 482 of the 1973 Code contains the inherent powers of the Court and does not confer any new powers but preserves the powers which the High Court already possessed. A harmonious construction of Sections 397 and 482 would lead to the irresistible conclusion that where a particular order is expressly barred under Section 397(2) and cannot be the subject of revision by the High Court, then to such a case the provisions of Section 482 would not apply. It is well settled that the inherent powers of the Court can ordinarily be exercised when there is no express provision on the subject-matter. Where there is an express provision, barring a particular remedy, the Court cannot resort to the exercise of inherent powers.
08- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi & Ors.-(1983) 1 SCC 1 -ds iSjk la[;k 6 o 7 esa /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds laca/k esa fuEukuqlkj foospu fd;k x;k gS %& "6. It may be noticed that Section 482 of the present Code is the ad verbatim copy of Section 561-A of the old Code. This provision confers a separate and independent power on the High Court alone to pass orders ex debito justitiae in cases where grave and substantial injustice has been done or where the (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:50:23 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:29224] (4 of 12) [CRLMP-4773/2023] process of the Court has been seriously abused. It is not merely a revisional power meant to be exercised against the orders passed by subordinate courts. It was under this section that in the old Code, the High Courts used to quash the proceedings or expunge uncalled for remarks against witnesses or other persons or subordinate courts. Thus, the scope, ambit and range of Section 561A (which is now Section 482) is quite different from the powers conferred by the present Code under the provisions of Section 397. It may be that in some cases there may be overlapping but such cases would be few and far between. It is well-settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the present Code can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. Further, the power being an extraordinary one, it has to be exercised sparingly. If these considerations are kept in mind, there will be no inconsistency between Sections 482 and 397(2) of the present Code.
7.The limits of the power under Section 482 were clearly defined by this Court in Raj Kapoor vs. State and Ors.-(1980)1 SCC 43 where Krishna Iyer J. observed as follows:-
"Even so, a general principle pervades this branch of law when a specific provision is made: easy resort to inherent power is not right except under compelling circumstances. Not that there is absence of jurisdiction but that inherent power should not invade areas set apart for specific power under the same Code.
09- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar Hamida vs. Rashid @ Rasheed & Ors.-(2008) 1 SCC474 okys ekeys esa Hkh /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds izko/kku ij fopkj fd;k x;k vkSj bl U;kf;d n`"Vkar esa iSjk la[;k 6 ls 9 esa fuEukuqlkj foospu fd;k x;k%& "6. We are in agreement with the contention advanced on behalf of the complainant appellant. Section 482 Cr.P.C. saves the inherent powers of the High Court and its language is quite explicit when it says that nothing in the 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 the Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. A procedural Code, however exhaustive, cannot expressly provide for all time to come against all the cases or points that (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:50:24 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:29224] (5 of 12) [CRLMP-4773/2023] may possibly arise, and in order that justice may not suffer, it is necessary that every court must in proper cases exercise its inherent power for the ends of justice or for the purpose of carrying out the other provisions of the Code. It is well- established principle that every Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do that real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone it exists or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. As held by the Privy Council in Emperor v. Khwaja NazirAhmad AIR 1945 PC 18 with regard to Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Section 482 Cr.P.C. is a verbatim copy of the said provision) gives no new powers. It only provides that those powers which the Court already inherently possesses shall be preserved and is inserted, lest it should be considered that the only powers possessed by the Court are those expressly conferred by the Code and that no inherent power had survived the passing of the Act.
7. It is well-established principle that inherent power conferred on the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in rare cases and that too to correct patent illegalities or when some miscarriage of justice is done. The content and scope of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were examined in considerable detail in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1978 SC 47 and it was held as under :
"The following principles may be stated in relation to the exercise of the inherent power of the High Court :
(1) That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party; (2) That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice;
(3) That it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code."
8. In State v. Navjot Sandhu (2003) 6 SCC 641 (para 29),after a review of large number of earlier decisions, it was held as under :
"29........The inherent power is to be used only in cases where there is an abuse of the process of the Court or where interference is absolutely necessary for securing the ends of justice. The inherent power must be exercised very sparingly as cases which (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:50:24 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:29224] (6 of 12) [CRLMP-4773/2023] require interference would be few and far between. The most common case where inherent jurisdiction is generally exercised is where criminal proceedings are required to be quashed because they are initiated illegally, vexatiously or without jurisdiction. Most of the cases set out here in above fall in this category. It must be remembered that the inherent power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code or any other enactment for redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. This power should not be exercised against an express bar of law en grafted in any other provision of the Criminal Procedure Code. This power cannot be exercised as against an express bar in some other enactment."
9. In Arun Shankar Shukla v. State of U.P. (1999) 6 SCC 146 the High Court had entertained a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after an order of conviction had been passed by the Sessions Judge and before the sentence had been awarded and further proceedings in the case had been stayed. In appeal this Court set aside the order of the High Court after reiterating the principle that it is well settled that inherent power is not to be invoked in respect of any matter covered by specific provisions of the Code or if its exercise would infringe any specific provision of the Code. It was further observed that the High Court overlooked the procedural law which empowered the convicted accused to prefer statutory appeal against conviction of the offence and intervened at an uncalled for stage and soft-pedalled the course of justice at a very crucial stage of the trial. The order of the High Court was accordingly set aside on the ground that a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could not have been entertained as the accused had an alternative remedy of an appeal as provided in the Code. It is not necessary to burden this judgment with other decisions of this Court as the consistent view throughout has been that a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained if there is any other specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party."
10- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd.& Others vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr (2009) 2 SCC 370 okys ekeys eas /kkjk 397 lhvkj-ih-lh- o 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds izko/kku ij fopkj dj iSjk la[;k 8 esa fuEukuqlkj foospu fd;k x;k%& (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:50:24 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:29224] (7 of 12) [CRLMP-4773/2023]
8. Indisputably issuance of summons is not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397 of the Code. This Court in a large number of decisions beginning from R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 to Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka , [ (2008) 3 SCC 574 ] has laid down the criterion for entertaining an application under Section 482. Only because a revision petition is maintainable, the same by itself, in our considered opinion, would not constitute a bar for entertaining an application under Section 482 of the Code.
11- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; dh rhu ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifrx.k dh ihB ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar Prabhu ChawlaVs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.-(2016) 16 SCC 30 okys ekeys esa Hkh /kkjk 397 lhvkj-ih-lh- o 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- ij foLr`r fopkj djrs gq, iSjk la[;k 6 ls 8 esa fuEukuqlkj foospu fd;k%&
6. In our considered view any attempt to explain the law further as regards the issue relating to inherent power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is unwarranted. We would simply reiterate that Section 482 begins with a non-obstante clause to state:
"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." A fortiori, there can be no total ban on the exercise of such wholesome jurisdiction where, in the words of Krishna Iyer, J. "abuse of the process of the Court or other extraordinary situation excites the court's jurisdiction. The limitation is self-restraint, nothing more." We venture to add a further reason in support. Since Section 397 Cr.P.C. is attracted against all orders other than interlocutory, a contrary view would limit the availability of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only to petty interlocutory orders! A situation wholly unwarranted and undesirable.
7. As a sequel, we are constrained to hold that the Division Bench, particularly in paragraph 28, in the case of Mohit alias Sonu and another (supra) in respect of inherent power of the High Court in Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. does not state the law correctly. We record our respectful disagreement.
8. In our considered opinion the learned Single Judge of the High Court should have followed the law laid down by this Court in the case of Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. (supra) and other earlier cases which were cited but wrongly ignored them in preference to (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:50:24 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:29224] (8 of 12) [CRLMP-4773/2023] a judgment of that Court in the case of Sanjay Bhandari (supra) passed by another learned Single Judge on 05.02.2009 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 289 of 2006 which is impugned in the connected Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 4744 of 2009. As a result, both the appeals, one preferred by Prabhu Chawla and the other by Jagdish Upasane & Ors. are allowed. The impugned common order dated 02.04.2009 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan is set aside and the matters are remitted back to the High Court for fresh hearing of the petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the light of law explained above and for disposal in accordance with law. Since the matters have remained pending for long, the High Court is requested to hear and decide the matters expeditiously, preferably within six months.
12- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; dh rhu ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifrx.k dh ihB }kjk Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI, (2017) 14 SCC 809, three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court okys ekeys esa Hkh /kkjk 397 lhvkj-ih-lh- o 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds izko/kku ij fopkj dj iSjk la[;k 29 ls 32 o 38] 39 esa fuEukuqlkj foospu fd;k x;k %&
29. This leads us to another facet of the submission made by the learned counsel that even the avenue of proceeding under Section 482 CrPC is barred as far as the appellants are concerned. As held in Amar Nath[(1977) 4 SCC 137] and with which conclusion we agree, if an interlocutory order is not revisable due to the prohibition contained in Section 397(2) CrPC that cannot be circumvented by resort to Section 482 CrPC. There can hardly be any serious dispute on this proposition.
30. What then is the utility of Section 482 CrPC? This was considered and explained in Madhu Limaye [(1977) 4 SCC 551] which noticed the prohibition in Section 397(2) CrPC and at the same time the expansive text of Section 482 CrPC and posed the question: In such a situation, what is the harmonious way out? This Court then proceeded to answer the question in the following manner:
"10. ... In such a situation, what is the harmonious way out? In our opinion, a happy solution of this problem would be to say that the bar provided in sub- section (2) of Section 397 operates only in exercise of the revisional power of the High Court, meaning thereby that the High Court will have no power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order. Then in accordance with one of the other principles enunciated above, the inherent power will come into play, there (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:50:24 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:29224] (9 of 12) [CRLMP-4773/2023] being no other provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. But then, if the order assailed is purely of an interlocutory character which could be corrected in exercise of the revisional power of the High Court under the 1898 Code, the High Court will refuse to exercise its inherent power. But in case the impugned order clearly brings about a situation which is an abuse of the process of the Court or for the purpose of securing the ends of justice interference by the High Court is absolutely necessary, then nothing contained in Section 397(2) can limit or affect the exercise of the inherent power by the High Court. But such cases would be few and far between. The High Court must exercise the inherent power very sparingly."
31. The expanse of Section 482 CrPC was also discussed in great detail in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 in the context of quashing a first information report or a complaint. After giving several illustrations, this Court cautioned that the power available under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised in the "rarest of rare" cases. It was said:
"103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."
32. In Satya Narayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 8 SCC 607 this Court considered the provisions of the PC Act and held that there could be no stay of a trial under the PC Act. It was clarified that that does not mean that the provisions of Section 482 CrPC cannot be taken recourse to, but even if a litigant approaches the High Court under Section 482 CrPC and that petition is entertained, the trial under the PC Act cannot be stayed. The litigant may convince the Court to expedite the hearing of the petition filed, but merely because the Court is not in a position to grant an early hearing would not be a ground to stay the trial even temporarily. With respect, we do not agree with the proposition that for the purposes of a stay of proceedings recourse could be had to Section 482 CrPC. Our discussion above makes this quite clear.
38. The Criminal Procedure Code is undoubtedly a complete code in itself. As has already been discussed by us, the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 397(2) CrPC is to be exercised only in respect of final orders and intermediate orders. The power under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised only in respect of interlocutory orders to give effect to an order passed (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:50:24 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:29224] (10 of 12) [CRLMP-4773/2023] under the Criminal Procedure Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to serve the ends of justice. As indicated above, this power has to be exercised only in the rarest of rare cases and not otherwise. If that is the position, and we are of the view that it is so, resort to Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution would be permissible perhaps only in the most extraordinary case. To invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court when the Criminal Procedure Code restricts it in the interest of a fair and expeditious trial for the benefit of the accused person, we find it difficult to accept the proposition that since Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are available to an accused person, these provisions should be resorted to in cases that are not the rarest of rare but for trifling issues.
39. In any event, if such a one in a million case does arise, the appellants can certainly approach this Court for relief under Article 136 of the Constitution.
13- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Jagmohan Singh Vs. Vimlesh Kumar & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 741/2022 Judgment Dated 05.05.2022) okys ekeys esa Hkh /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds izko/kku ij fopkj dj fuEukuqlkj foospu fd;k x;k %& The Court interferes in criminal proceedings, in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., in rare and exceptional cases, to give effect to the provisions of the Cr.P.C. or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court should not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry into whether there is reliable evidence or not. The jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution only when such exercise is justified by the specific provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. itself.
14- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67 Usha Chakraborty & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. Criminal Appeal okys ekeys esa Hkh /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds izko/kku ij fopkj dj iSjk la[;k 3 esa fuEukuqlkj foospu fd;k x;k %&
3. There can be no doubt with respect to the position that jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised with care and caution and sparingly. To wit, exercise of the said power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of process of law.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:50:24 AM)[2023:RJ-JD:29224] (11 of 12) [CRLMP-4773/2023] 15- fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kfpdkdrkZ dh vksj ls iwoZ esa izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar mfeZyk nsoh okys ekeys esa vfHk;qDr dks leu djus dk vkns'k intermediatory vkns'k ekuk x;k vkSj /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds eqrkfcd inherent jurisdiction ds vk/kkj ij o /kkjk 397 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds rgr fjohtu dh tkus ;ksX; ekuk x;k vkSj fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kfpdkdrkZ dh vksj ls iwoZ esa izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar D. Devaraja okys ekeys esa vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr ugha gksus ds ekeys esa abuse of process of court ekurs gq, /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds rgr dk;Zokgh u dj /kkjk 245 lhvkj-
ih-lh- ds rgr dk;Zokgh djus ds dukZVd mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dks xyr Bgjk;k x;kA 16- iwoZ esa of.kZr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa izfrikfnr fl)karksa ls ;g Li"V gS fd lkekU;r;k% vafre vkns'k ;k intermediate order ds ekeys esa fjohtu djuh pkfg,A ;fn vk{ksfir vkns'k ls abuse of process of court gksrk gks ml voLFkk esa vFkok ends of justice ds fy,] vko';drk gksus ij viokfnr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa inherent power dk iz;ksx fd;k tk ldrk gS] ftlds fy, /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh-
esa saving clause cuk;k x;k gS] /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- dk mi;ksx izR;sd ,sls ekeys esa ugha fd;k tk ldrk] ftlesa /kkjk 397 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds rgr fuxjkuh dh tk ldrh gksA viokfnr ifjfLFkfr;ka gksus ij gh fjohtu fd, cxSj lh/ks gh /kkjk 482 ds rgr ;kfpdk ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk dh tk ldrh gSA izR;sd ekeys ds rF; ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fopkj dj gh ;g r; fd;k tk ldrk gS fd /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds eqrkfcd vkns'k fn;k tkuk fof/klEer gS vFkok ughaA /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- dk iz;ksx fdQk;r ls ¼sparingly½ "rarest of rare" cases esa djuk pkfg,A 17- mDr fof/kd fLFkfr dks en~nsutj j[krs gq, gLrxr ekeys ij fopkj fd;k x;kA gLrxr ekeys esa vk{ksfir vkns'k /kkjk 133 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds rgr ikfjr fd;k x;k gS vkSj vkns'k ikfjr djus ls iwoZ ;kfpdkdrkZ dks uksfVl nsdj lquokbZ dk volj fn;k x;kA ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk tokc o nLrkost is'k fd, x,A v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk tks vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k og v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk dk uk gks] bl LVst ij ,slk ugha ekuk tk ldrkA izFken`"V;k bl ekeys esa abuse of process of court gksuk ugha ik;k tkrk gS vkSj ends of justice ds fy, Hkh bl ekeys esa gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk fof/klEer izrhr ugha gksrkA ;g viokfnr ekeyk ugha gksus ls bl ekeys esa /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds rgr dksbZ vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkuk fof/klEer izrhr ugha gksrkA ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk vk{ksfir vkns'k ds fo:) /kkjk 397 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds rgr dk;Zokgh dh tkuh pkfg, Fkh] ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk ,slk u dj (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:50:24 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:29224] (12 of 12) [CRLMP-4773/2023] lh/ks gh /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds rgr ;kfpdk bl U;k;ky; esa is'k dh xbZ gS] tks vk/kkjghu gksus ls [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA 18- vr% ;kfpdkdrkZ dh ;kfpdk vUrxZr /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA ;kfpdkdrkZ /kkjk 397 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds rgr l{ke U;k;ky; esa dk;Zokgh djus ds fy, Lora= jgsxkA LFkxu izkFkZuk&i= dk Hkh fuLrkj.k fd;k tkrk gSA (YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J Mayank/-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:50:24 AM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)