2016 (11) TMI 1688 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of application - alternative remedy available to the Petitioner by way of revision - failure to make loan repayment - Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT - The order of the High Court has no legs to stand in view of the law laid down by this Court in PRABHU CHAWLA VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 2016 (9) TMI 1595 - SUPREME COURT . In view of the divergent opinions of this Court in the case of DHARIWAL TOBACO PRODUCTS LTD. AND ORS. VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 2008 (12) TMI 811 - SUPREME COURT and MOHIT ALIAS SONU AND ANOTHER VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER 2013 (7) TMI 1005 - SUPREME COURT , the matter was placed before the three Judge Bench of this Court. The three Judge Bench took the view 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 . As Section 397 of 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 is wholly unwarranted and undesirable. Thus, mere availability of alternative remedy cannot be a ground to dis-entitle the relief Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure - also it is felt that the learned Judge without appreciating any of the factual and legal position, in a mechanical way, passed the impugned order, which warrants interference by this Court. The matter is remanded to the High Court for reconsideration in the light of the settled legal position - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Exercise of inherent powers by the High Court.
3. Availability of alternative remedy and its impact on invoking Section 482.

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The case involved an appeal challenging the order passed by the High Court of Bombay, where the Appellants sought relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court dismissed the application on the grounds that an alternative remedy was available through revision under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court, upon scrutiny, found that the High Court's basis for the order was the existence of an alternative remedy, which led to the dismissal of the application. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court cannot refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 merely because a revision petition is maintainable, citing the case law precedent.

Issue 2: Exercise of inherent powers by the High Court:
The Supreme Court analyzed the High Court's decision and found that the order lacked legal standing based on the law laid down in previous judgments. The Supreme Court referred to a case where a three-Judge Bench clarified that Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to make necessary orders to secure the ends of justice, irrespective of the availability of alternative remedies. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order had no legal basis and was passed without proper appreciation of the legal position. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the matter for reconsideration in light of the settled legal position.

Issue 3: Availability of alternative remedy and its impact on invoking Section 482:
The Appellants had approached the High Court seeking to quash the FIR registered against them under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court initially admitted the application but later dismissed it, citing the availability of a statutory remedy through revision under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court, however, held that the mere availability of an alternative remedy cannot bar the relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court's mechanical dismissal without appreciating the factual and legal position warranted interference. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed a reconsideration based on the settled legal position.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and remanding the matter for reconsideration. The judgment clarified the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the inherent powers of the High Court to secure justice, irrespective of the availability of alternative remedies.