TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 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 Code of Criminal Procedure is attracted against all orders other than interlocutory, a contrary view would limit the availability of inherent powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure only to petty interlocutory orders! A situation wholly unwarranted and undesirable. The matters are remitted back to the High Court for fresh hearing of the petitions Under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Code of Criminal Procedure not maintainable. 3. While considering all these matters at the SLP stage, on 05.07.2013, a Division Bench found the impugned order of the High Court to be against the law stated in Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2009) 2 SCC 370. In that case the Division Bench concurred with the proposition of law that availability of alternative remedy of criminal revision Under Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure by itself cannot be a good ground to dismiss an application Under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. But it noticed that a later Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mohit alias Sonu and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2013) 7 SCC 789 app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er judgments of this Court including that in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka (2008) 3 SCC 574 for coming to the conclusion that only because a revision petition is maintainable, the same by itself, ........., would not constitute a bar for entertaining an application Under Section 482 of the Code. Mr. Goswami also placed strong reliance upon judgment of Krishna Iyer, J. in a Division Bench in the case of Raj Kapoor and Ors. v. State and Ors. (1980) 1 SCC 43. Relying upon judgment of a Bench of three Judges in the case of Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551 and quoting therefrom, Krishna Iyer, J. in his inimitable style made the law crystal clear in paragraph 10 which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in accordance with Section 482 of the 1973 Code, even assuming, although not accepting, that invoking the revisional power of the High Court is impermissible. I am, therefore clear in my mind that the inherent power is not rebuffed in the case situation before us. Counsel on both sides, sensitively responding to our allergy for legalistics, rightly agreed that the fanatical insistence on the formal filing of a copy of the order under cessation need not take up this Court's time. Our conclusion concurs with the concession of counsel on both sides that merely because a copy of the order has not been produced, despite its presence in the records in the court, it is not possible for me to hold that the entire revisory power stand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 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 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 and Ors. are allowed. The impugned common order dated 02.04.2009 pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
