Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while citing various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope & ambit of Section 482 and 397 of the Code, argued that there is no bar in filing direct petition under Section 482 of the Code before this Court despite there being alternative remedy of filing revision petition under Section 397 CrPC, as according to them, even on merits if the allegations are looked into, no case is made out at its face value. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner Sanjay Bhandari in Cr.Misc. Petition No.289/06, the case is purely of civil nature and in Cr.Misc. Petition No.41/08, the criminal proceedings are void ab initio. According to the learned counsel, if the investigation is unfair or cognizance has been taken in disregard to the established principles of law, this Court in exercise of its inherent powers, can quash the proceedings, even though the party has not preferred to choose the remedy of revision available to him. It is further argued that by virtue of sub- sections(2) and (3) of Section 397 of the Code, the revision petition is barred which is against the interlocutory order or further application by the same person respectively. In support of their contention, they have relied upon various pronouncements, which are hereinafter referred.

9. A bare reading of Section 397(1) of the Code speaks that record of any proceeding of any inferior court can be examined by the High Court or the Sessions Judge with regard to its correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and also its regularity. Under sub-section (2), a bar has been imposed for exercise of such power in relation to interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding and sub-section (3) bars further revision by the same person. Thus, on a cumulative reading of these three sub-sections, it is clear that except in interlocutory orders or second revision by the same person, the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned sentences or orders may be examined either by the High Court or by the Sessions Judge, whereas under Section 482 of the Code, while exercising inherent powers, the High Court may 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. Though, on broad reading of both the Sections, it can be said that exercise of powers under Sec.397 and Section 482 of the Code are by and large similar in granting relief to the aggrieved party, except that of interlocutory order and of second revision by the same party. If the order is of such a nature as contemplated under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 397 of the Code, then the only remedy available to the aggrieved party is by way of a petition under Section 482 of the Code within its four corners. But, if these two Sections are looked into in the light of the words used, Section 397 is confined to the extent of examining the correctness, legality or propriety of the order, whereas inherent powers can be exercised to give effect to any order given under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice.

10. It is noticed rather shocking that in many of the cases, aggrieved parties are trying to approach the High Court in similarly situated cases either under Section 397 or under Section 482 of the Code as advised or both the remedies simultaneously through one or other party of the same case. For instance, this Court came with a situation when in a same case of framing charges on 22.8.06 against three accused u/ss.420, 467, 468 read with 120B IPC, one of the accused Niranjan Kumar preferred a Misc. Petition u/s.482 of the Code & another accused Avadh Bihari filed revision being S.B.Cr.Revision No.1025/07 under Section 397 of the Code in this Court, which, on being noticed, have been tagged together. Likewise, in Cr.Misc.Petition No.736/99, accused, who was a Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Dungla, on one hand, challenged FIR for its quashing u/s.482 of the Code, which was stayed by the High Court and on the other hand, challenged the order of Judicial Magistrate, who took cognizance u/s.509 IPC on the same facts in this Court u/s.397 of the Code by way of filing Cr.Revision No.742/1999, resulting in its dismissal in the light of Natwarlal vs. State reported in 2008(1) CrLR (Raj) 617. During pendency of this petition, the accused was acquitted and the Misc. Petition was dismissed as having become infructuous at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner. Certain more examples may be noticed of the like nature in this Court and other High Courts as well. Whether the High Court has some check to control this dual process, which can be termed as riding on two horses by the parties to the litigation or abuse of the process by the Courts itself? Answer to this lies by declaring a definite law based on logical conclusion to give proper effect to the provisions of this Code as embodied u/ss.397 and 482 of the Code. Certain judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court are of wide importance to determine the ratio in this regard, which will be discussed hereinafter.

12. In the present petitions, both the petitioners have challenged the order of taking cognizance i.e. initiation of proceedings being a matter of moment for putting them on trial, which is not an interlocutory order but a final order, by way of these petitions filed u/s.482 CrPC. In this regard, if the law is looked into, the leading case on this subject is of the larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1978 SC 47. While discussing the scope of Section 482 and 397(2) of the Code, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the following principles with regard to exercise of inherent powers by the High Court: