2009 (2) TMI 909 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Scope and applicability of Sections 482 and 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
2. The legality of the orders of taking cognizance by the Magistrates.
3. The nature of the orders (interlocutory or final) and their impact on the available legal remedies.
4. The inherent powers of the High Court and their limitations.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Scope and Applicability of Sections 482 and 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973:
The judgment primarily addresses whether the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked when there is an alternative remedy available under Section 397 CrPC. The court noted that Section 397 allows the High Court or any Sessions Judge to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court to ensure the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order. However, Sub-section (2) bars the exercise of this power in relation to interlocutory orders, and Sub-section (3) prohibits a second revision by the same person. Section 482, on the other hand, preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, prevent abuse of the process of any court, or secure the ends of justice.

2. Legality of the Orders of Taking Cognizance by the Magistrates:
In Criminal Misc. Petition No. 289/2006, the petitioner was accused of cheating and obtaining a hotel on rent under false pretenses, which included purchasing cars in the name of the hotel business and selling them to other persons, thus obtaining tax relief and committing customs duty theft. The Magistrate took cognizance based on the chargesheet filed by the police. In Criminal Misc. Petition No. 41/2008, the petitioner was accused of misbranding an insecticide product. The Magistrate took cognizance based on a complaint filed by the Assistant Director of Agriculture & Insecticides Inspector. The petitioners challenged the orders of taking cognizance, arguing that the cases were either civil in nature or void ab initio.

3. Nature of the Orders (Interlocutory or Final) and Their Impact on Available Legal Remedies:
The court emphasized that the order of taking cognizance is not an interlocutory order but a final one, as it initiates proceedings and puts the accused on trial. This view is supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, which held that orders initiating proceedings or framing charges are not interlocutory. Therefore, such orders can be challenged through revision under Section 397 CrPC, and the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should not be invoked if there is a specific remedy available under the Code.

4. Inherent Powers of the High Court and Their Limitations:
The court reiterated that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly and only when necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The principles laid down in Madhu Limaye's case were cited, emphasizing that inherent powers should not be used if there is a specific provision in the Code for redressal, and they should not be exercised against the express bar of law in any other provision of the Code. The court also referred to various Supreme Court judgments to underline that the inherent powers are not meant to bypass the specific remedies provided under the Code.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the orders of taking cognizance in both cases were final orders and not interlocutory. Therefore, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners was to file a revision under Section 397 CrPC rather than invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. The petitions were dismissed, with the court noting that the period consumed in the petition should not affect the limitation period for filing a revision.