9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the first Respondent alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code. The Petitioner is arraigned as an accused in the said complaint. In this Petition, the Petitioner has also taken exception to order dated 24th February, 2004 passed by the learned Magistrate by which Application made by the Petitioner for recalling order issuing process has been rejected. The Petitioner has disclosed in the Petition that a Revision Application has been filed in the Sessions Court by the Petitioner for challenging the said order dated 24th February, 2004. It is stated in the Petition that the said Revision Application may not survive in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Adalat Prasa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 482 of the said Code. He has placed reliance on several decisions, a reference to which is made in the later part of this order. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. In the present case, the Petitioner filed an Application before the learned Magistrate praying for recalling the order by which process was issued on the private complaint filed by the first Respondent. The said Application was rejected. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Adalat Prasad (supra) the said Application made by the Petitioner was not maintainable. Therefore, the Petitioner has rightly contended that the Revision Application filed by him before the Sessions Court for challenging the order on the said Application wil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Code for redressal of the grievance of the applicants, in my opinion, it would be appropriate that the applicants prefer a revision against the order of the Magistrate issuing process. This is the position in respect of the application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. As far as Writ Petitions seeking similar reliefs i.e. quashing of process or proceedings in which process has been issued, are concerned, it would be advantageous to refer to a decision by five Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Thansingh Nathmal v. The Supdt. of Taxes Dubri Ors. AIR 1964 SC 1419 : (1964) 4 SCR 654 : (1964) 5 STC 468 (SC) reported in. In the said decision, it has been observed that when there is an efficacious alternate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent for redressal of grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Thus, the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Nayjot (supra) makes it very clear that power under Section 482 can be exercised even when there is bar under Section 397 of the Code. Thus, the submission of Shri Jha that if Revision Application is decided against the Petitioner it will not be open for the Petitioner to approach this Court for invoking the powers under section 482 of the said Code is not correct. The learned Single Judge of this court in the case of Ashok Yashwant Samant v. Suparana Ashok Samant 1990 Mah. L.J. 963 held that High Court can exercise its powers under Article 227of the Constitution of India as well as under Section 482 of the said Code even af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n exercise power under section 482 of the said Code even though remedy under Section 397 is not availed of. He submitted that while deciding revision against an order issuing process the court exercising the power of revision cannot look into any material which is not produced alongwith the complaint. Relying on decision of the learned Single Judge of this court in the case of Shriram D. Mulay Anr. v. Thakurdas Sharma1 he submitted that power of this court under section 482 is not controlled by section 397 of the said Code. He invited my attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal (2005) 2 S.C.C. 659 and submitted that when prosecution initiated was likely to result only in shear harassme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot Sandhu (supra), I am not inclined to entertain this Petition. 12. Shri Jha, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that as this Petition was pending in this Court for considerably long time, the Petitioner will be faced with hurdle of bar of limitation if a Revision Application is to be filed in the Sessions Court. I find that this Petition was filed by the Petitioner in this Court on 15th March, 2005 and on 21st March, 2005, this Court issued notice before admission to the Respondents. If Petitioner approaches the Sessions Court by way of a Revision Application, while considering the prayer for condonation of delay, the Sessions Court is bound to take into account the fact that the Petitioner filed this Petition i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
