Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurbachan Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 8 August, 2012
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Criminal Misc.M-No.19201 of 2012(O & M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.M-No.19201 of 2012(O & M)
Date of Decision:08.08.2012
Gurbachan Singh .....petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & anr. .....respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr.Parminder Paul Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner
***
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.(ORAL):
The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short) is directed against the judgment dated 10.10.2011(Annexure P-10) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24.03.2008 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Malerkotla, was dismissed.
The question of law that falls for consideration of this Court is whether, in the given fact situation of the present case, this petition is maintainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in view of the statutory bar provided under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.
When the case came up for motion hearing on 04.07.2012, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to address this Criminal Misc.M-No.19201 of 2012(O & M) 2 Court on the maintainability of this petition in view of the statutory bar contained in Section 397 (3) Cr.P.C. and on his request, the case was adjourned for today.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a Full Bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Re Puritipati Jagga Reddy versus State AIR 1979 Andhra Pradesh 146 to contend that the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was maintainable.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and with his able assistance have gone through the record of the case. Having given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Full Bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Re Puritipati Jagga Reddy (Supra) does not come to the help of the petitioner for the reason that the later judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard are clear and emphatic. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajan Kumar Machananda v. State of Karnataka, 1990 (supp.) SCC 132, laid down the law in this regard. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajan Kumar Machananda (Supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present case read as under:
"Heard learned counsel for the parties. The respondent-State had challenged the order before the Court of Sessions when the learned Magistrate before whom the matter was proceeding directed release of the truck in favour of the appellant. The Criminal Misc.M-No.19201 of 2012(O & M) 3 revisional court dismissed the petition of the State. A second revision did not lie at the instance of the State to the High Court in view of the provisions of Section 397 (3) of CrPC. Obviously, to avoid this bar, the application moved by the State before the High Court was stated to be under Section 482 CrPC asking for exercise of inherent powers. In exercise of that power, the High Court has reversed the order of the Magistrate as affirmed by the Sessions Judge. The question for consideration is as to whether the bar under Section 397 (3) CrPC should have been taken note of to reject the revision at the instance of the State Government or action taken by the High Court in exercise of its inherent power has to be sustained. It is not disputed by counsel appearing for the State that the move before the High Court was really on application for revision of the order of the Magistrate releasing the truck. That is exactly what is prohibited under Section 397 (3) CrPC. Merely by saying that the jurisdiction of the High Court for exercise of its inherent power was being invoked the statutory bar could not have been overcome. If that was to be permitted every revision application facing the bar of Section 397 (3) of the Code could be labelled as one under Section 482. We are satisfied that this is a case where the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision. The appeal is allowed and we set aside the order of the High Court. The order of the Magistrate as affirmed Criminal Misc.M-No.19201 of 2012(O & M) 4 by the Sessions Judge is upheld."
The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajan Kumar Machananda (Supra), came to be reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab versus Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Ors.2012(1) RCR (Crl.)126. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar's case (Supra), which can be aptly followed here, read as under:
In Rajan Kumar Machananda v. State of Karnataka, 1990 (supp.) SCC 132, this Court examined a case as to whether the bar under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. can be circumvented by invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court. The Court came to the conclusion that if such a course was permissible it would be possible that every application facing the bar of Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. would be labelled as one under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Thus, the statutory bar cannot be circumvented.
Even if, for the sake of argument, it is accepted that the statutory bar contained under Section 397(3) is not absolute one, still, no special case has been made out by the petitioner so as to warrant interference in the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below. The observations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Criminal Misc.M-No.19201 of 2012(O & M) 5 Sangrur, in the impugned order dated 10.10.2011, read as under:
"Coming to the facts of the case in hand, this Court feels that present respondent Dr.Kuldeep Singh Bhullar is running his clinic from his residence and the present revisionist had fixed an open air outlet of his septic tank just adjoining the main gate of the residence of the present respondent/complainant Dr.Kuldeep Singh Bhullar, as such in view of the report submitted by the committee dated 3.3.2008 it can be safely inferred that the open air pipe of the septic tank towards the house of the respondent is hazardous to the residents of the area, particularly to the patients, who must have been visiting the clinic of the present respondent/complainant. Thus, this court feels that the learned SDM Malerkotla rightly passed the order dated 24.03.2008 on the report of the committee dated 3.3.2008 and rightly directed the present revisionist to remove the open air outlet of his septic tank towards the residential house of the respondent/complainant. Thus, the order dated 24.03.2008 cannot be termed to be illegal or perverse in any manner, as such the revision petition filed against the order dated 24.03.2008 being meritless, as such the same is hereby dismissed."
In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, the present petition is devoid of any merit. The impugned orders passed by the learned courts below are sustainable in law. No patent illegality or perversity has been pointed out in the impugned orders. Thus, no case Criminal Misc.M-No.19201 of 2012(O & M) 6 for interference is made out.
Resultantly, the instant petition is ordered to be dismissed.
08.08.2012 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) neenu JUDGE