9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s it was a matter of civil nature. The respondent-corporation had also initiated steps for arbitration proceedings on the basis of the arbitration clause in the agreement. Thus the High Court was not justified in exercising its inherent power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in this case. It cannot be either said that there was miscarriage of justice warranting interference by the High Court. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se was made out. The Chief Judicial Magistrate also observed that there was no prima facie case to show that the paddy was supplied to the accused and that there was shortage of rice supplied to the corporation. The order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate was challenged by the corporation in a revision filed before the Court of Sessions Judge, Sangrur. The Sessions Judge, after elaborately considering the question raised, upheld the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Sessions Judge noticed the fact that the corporation had initiated arbitration proceedings against the Jagdamba Rice Mill and had also filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and that the filing of the present complaint alleging comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plaint was registered under sections 420, 406 IPC. After inquiry, the police filed a report stating that the case was essentially of a civil nature and no offence was made out. The complainant brought the matter to the Superintendent of Police. As per the directions of the Superintendent of Police, the case was investigated by the Crime Branch and a fresh report was filed under section 173 IPC. On receipt of the report, the Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under sections 420 and 406 IPC. Thereupon, the appellant/accused filed an application for discharge and the accused was discharged by the Magistrate. The complainant filed a revision before the Sessions Court and the revision was dismissed. On further revision by the complainant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Court or when mandatory provisions of law were not complied with and when the High Court feel that the inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised to correct the mistake committed by the revisional Court. 8. In State v. Navjot Sandhu [2003] 6 SCC 641, the power of the High Court under section 482 came up for consideration and it was held as under: "...section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code starts with the words 'Nothing in this Code'. Thus, the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised even when there is a bar under section 397 or some other provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, as is set out in Satya Narayan Sharma's case [2001] 8 SCC 607, this power cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
