2006 (8) TMI 682 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the High Court can entertain a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India when the remedy of filing a Revision Application under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has not been exhausted.
2. Whether an order issuing process on a private complaint can be challenged through a Revision Application under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. Whether the High Court can exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 even after the aggrieved party has exhausted the remedy of filing a Revision Application under Section 397 of the Code.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves a challenge to an order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, where the Petitioner was arraigned as an accused in a private complaint alleging offenses under sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code. The Petitioner sought to recall the order issuing process, which was rejected. The Petitioner also filed a Revision Application in the Sessions Court. The issue raised was whether the High Court could entertain the petition under Article 227 when the Revision Application remedy had not been exhausted, citing precedents like V.K. Jain v. Pratap V. Padode.
2. The Petitioner argued that the remedy under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was broader than that under section 397, emphasizing that the High Court's powers were distinct. However, the court held that the Revision Application filed by the Petitioner would not survive due to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal & Ors., where the application for recalling the order issuing process was deemed not maintainable.
3. The judgment delved into the interpretation of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the need for sparing use of inherent powers. It referenced the case law, including State v. Navjot Sandhu & Ors., to establish that the High Court could exercise its powers under Section 482 even if there was a bar under Section 397. The court highlighted that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 was discretionary and should not be used to circumvent statutory remedies, except in cases of gross abuse of process of law.

Overall, the judgment clarified the scope and limitations of the High Court's powers under Article 227 and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the need for caution and adherence to legal principles in invoking these powers.