Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2008 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (12) TMI 811 - SUPREME COURTMaintainability of application - an application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can be dismissed only on the premise that an alternative remedy of filing a revision application u/s 397 of the Code is available? High Court committed a serious error in rejecting the application filed by appellants u/s 482 of the Code without entering into the merit of the matter. HELD THAT:- 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 [1960 (3) TMI 45 - SUPREME COURT] to Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka 2008 [2008 (2) TMI 866 - SUPREME COURT] has laid down the criterion for entertaining an application u/s 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 u/s 482 of the Code. Even where a revision application is barred, as for example the remedy by way of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 this Court has held that the remedies under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India would be available. Even in cases where a second revision before the High Court after dismissal of the first one by the Court of Sessions is barred u/s 397(2) of the Code, the inherent power of the Court has been held to be available. The power of the High Court can be exercised not only in terms of Section 482 of the Code but also in terms of Section 483 thereof. Inherent power of the High Court is not conferred by statute but has merely been saved thereunder. It is, thus, difficult to conceive that the jurisdiction of the High Court would be held to be barred only because the revisional jurisdiction could also be availed of. It may be true, as has been noticed by the High Court that thereunder availability of appellate or revisional jurisdiction of the High Court did not fall for its consideration but in our considered opinion it is wholly preposterous to hold that Adalat Prasad [2004 (8) TMI 647 - SUPREME COURT], so far as it related to invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is concerned, did not lay down good law. The High Court in saying so did not only read the said judgment in its proper perspective; it misdirected itself in saying so as it did not pose unto itself a correct question. For the reasons aforementioned the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. The High Court is directed to consider the matter afresh on merits. The appeal is allowed.
|