9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 769 - HC - Indian LawsRevisional jurisdiction of the court of Sessions - whether the petitioner having availed of the remedy of revision should be allowed to take recourse to Section 482 Cr. PC as a substitute for virtually initiating a second revisional challenge or scrutiny which is clearly barred under Section 397(3) Cr. PC.? Held that - A perusal of the criminal complaint in which the impugned order was passed by the Magistrate, which has been upheld by the court of Sessions in revision, would show that it is admitted case of the petitioner that he had come in contact with the private respondents herein, they being connected to the company described as M/s. DPA Finance Pvt. Ltd. engaged in the business of providing loans and further that he had executed certain documents to avail of certain loan facility though, as per his case, upon being induced to do so. The Magistrate was not satisfied with the prayer for direction to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr. PC holding that the evidence is available and that the complainant was in a position to adduce the same - This court finds no special case made out for this court to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. PC in the matter at hand. There is no miscarriage of justice or illegality in the approach adopted by the two courts below. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Petitioner challenging order of Metropolitan Magistrate declining direction to police for investigation. 2. Petitioner invoking revisional jurisdiction of Sessions Court after Magistrate's order. 3. Procedural issue: Whether petitioner can seek recourse to Section 482 Cr. PC after revisional challenge. 4. Interpretation of Section 482 Cr. PC in light of previous Supreme Court judgments. 5. Application of inherent power under Section 482 Cr. PC in cases of miscarriage of justice. 6. Analysis of petitioner's allegations regarding forgery, cheating, and use of forged documents. 7. Magistrate's decision to not direct police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr. PC. 8. Court of Sessions affirming Magistrate's decision and allowing police probe under Section 202 Cr. PC if required. 9. High Court's assessment of the need for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. PC. Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a criminal complaint against the respondents, seeking police direction under Section 156(3) Cr. PC, which the Magistrate declined. The Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint but did not order police investigation, leading the petitioner to challenge this decision. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Sessions Court through a revision petition after the Magistrate's order. The Sessions Court dismissed the revision petition, prompting the petitioner to seek relief under Section 482 Cr. PC in the High Court. 3. A procedural issue arose regarding the petitioner's right to invoke Section 482 Cr. PC after utilizing the revisional remedy, which is restricted under Section 397(3) Cr. PC. 4. The High Court referred to previous Supreme Court judgments to interpret the scope of Section 482 Cr. PC, emphasizing that it should be used sparingly and only in cases of failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism. 5. The court considered the petitioner's reliance on inherent power under Section 482 Cr. PC in cases of miscarriage of justice, citing previous Supreme Court decisions highlighting the need for caution and exceptional circumstances. 6. The petitioner alleged forgery, cheating, and use of forged documents in connection with a loan facility, leading to legal notices and prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act. These allegations formed the basis of the criminal complaint. 7. The Magistrate and Sessions Court did not find grounds to direct police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr. PC, citing the availability of evidence and the petitioner's ability to present it. 8. The Sessions Court upheld the Magistrate's decision and noted that police investigation could be conducted under Section 202 Cr. PC if necessary at a later stage. 9. After hearing arguments, the High Court found no justification for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. PC, concluding that there was no miscarriage of justice or illegality in the lower courts' approach, and dismissed the petition.
|
