2021 (7) TMI 837 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of this criminal miscellaneous petition - exercise of inherent jurisdiction by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Matter compromised between parties - HELD THAT - It is well established and recognised practice that against appellate order confirming the judgment of conviction, the revision petition lies under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. - this Court will not entertain a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where the petitioner has other remedy available under the Code except under exceptional circumstances. After considering earlier judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra 1977 (10) TMI 111 - SUPREME COURT , the Court proceeded to hold that there can be no total ban on the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction conferred on a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if such exercise of power is necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent the abuse of process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice - In the present case, no such exceptional circumstance exists which could warrant exercise of inherent jurisdiction by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. instead of relegating the petitioner to invoke the well established regular mode of challenge to the judgment of conviction affirmed in appeal, by way of revision petition. The only exceptional circumstance, pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. instead of revisional jurisdiction is that the matter has been compromised between the parties. It is trite that cognizance of the factum of settlement of dispute between the parties by way of compromise, can be taken by this Court in its revisional jurisdictional also and appropriate order can be passed. Therefore, mere settlement of dispute by way of compromise between the parties, cannot be reckoned as such exceptional circumstance under which this Court can exercise its inherent and extraordinary jurisdiction vide Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order of conviction affirmed in appeal in view of availability of regular remedy of revision petition inasmuch as the factum of compromise can be taken into consideration by this Court under its revisional jurisdiction also. This criminal misc. petition is dismissed being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the final order of conviction.
2. Appropriate legal remedy following the dismissal of an appeal confirming a conviction.
3. Exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Against the Final Order of Conviction:
The court examined whether a criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be maintained against a final order of conviction. It was established that the appropriate legal recourse against an appellate order confirming a conviction is a revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. The judgment cited precedents such as *Vivek Rai & Anr. vs. High Court of Jharkhand* and *Girish Kumar Suneja vs. Central Bureau of Investigation*, which clarified that a revision petition is the standard practice for challenging a conviction affirmed in appeal.

2. Appropriate Legal Remedy Following the Dismissal of an Appeal Confirming a Conviction:
The court reiterated that the progression of legal proceedings in cases of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 involves multiple levels of litigation. Specifically, following a conviction, the appropriate sequence is an appeal to the Court of Sessions under Section 374(3)(a) Cr.P.C., followed by a revision to the High Court under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., and potentially a petition to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. This sequence underscores that a revision petition is the prescribed remedy after an appellate court confirms a conviction.

3. Exceptional Circumstances Warranting the Exercise of Inherent Jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:
The court addressed the argument that exceptional circumstances, such as a compromise between parties, could justify invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. instead of a revision petition. The court reviewed relevant judgments, including *Prabhu Chawla vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.* and *K.M. Ibrahim vs. K.P. Mohammed & Anr.*, which emphasized that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and only in the absence of other remedies. The court concluded that the settlement of a dispute by compromise does not constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying the bypassing of the regular remedy of a revision petition. The court noted that the fact of a compromise could be considered within the revisional jurisdiction as well.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as not maintainable, reaffirming that the appropriate remedy following the dismissal of an appeal confirming a conviction is a revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. The court underscored that exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were not present in this case, as the factum of compromise could be addressed within the revisional jurisdiction.