2001 (11) TMI 1062 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

• Whether the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable when the petitioner has already availed the remedy of criminal revision under Sections 397/401 of the Code.
• Whether there is any illegality or grave injustice in the concurrent findings of the lower courts that would justify the invocation of the High Court's powers under Section 482 of the Code or Article 227 of the Constitution.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Maintainability of the Petition under Section 482 of the Code and Article 227 of the Constitution

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: The legal framework involves Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides inherent powers to the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Article 227 of the Constitution grants the High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its jurisdiction. Sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code bars a second revision petition.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court interpreted that since the petitioner had already availed the remedy of criminal revision under Sections 397/401, a second revision is barred by Sub-section (2) of Section 397. The Court emphasized that the scope of Section 482 and Article 227 is narrow and can only be invoked in rare cases of grave injustice.
• Key evidence and findings: The Court noted the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the respondent lacked means to maintain herself and that the petitioner was not providing maintenance.
• Application of law to facts: The Court applied the legal provisions to the facts by determining that the petition was essentially a second revision, which is not maintainable under the law.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner did not present any arguments due to absence during the hearing. The Court considered the arguments of the respondent's counsel and the records of the case.
• Conclusions: The Court concluded that the petition is not maintainable as it is essentially a second revision, barred by Sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code.

2. Examination of Alleged Illegality or Grave Injustice

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court referred to the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code and the supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, which are to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found no illegality or grave injustice in the concurrent findings of the lower courts. It stressed that the powers under Section 482 and Article 227 are not meant to re-evaluate evidence or findings of fact unless there is a manifest error leading to injustice.
• Key evidence and findings: The findings of the lower courts were based on the evidence that the respondent was unable to maintain herself and was not being maintained by the petitioner.
• Application of law to facts: The Court applied the narrow scope of its powers to the facts, determining that there was no basis for interference as no grave injustice or abuse of process was evident.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The Court noted the absence of any compelling argument from the petitioner that would necessitate the exercise of its inherent or supervisory powers.
• Conclusions: The Court concluded that there was no justification for invoking its powers under Section 482 or Article 227, as no grave injustice or abuse of process was demonstrated.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The powers of this Court sought to be invoked, can be exercised only in the rarest of the rare cases where grave injustice is shown to have been caused and requires to be undone."
• Core principles established: The judgment reinforces the principle that a second revision petition is not maintainable under Sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code. It also underscores the limited scope of the High Court's powers under Section 482 of the Code and Article 227 of the Constitution, which are to be exercised only in exceptional cases of manifest injustice or abuse of process.
• Final determinations on each issue: The petition was dismissed as it was deemed a second revision, which is not maintainable. The Court found no basis for exercising its inherent or supervisory powers due to the absence of any grave injustice or illegality in the lower courts' findings.