Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Jayachandra Reddy, M. M. Punchhi
JITENDER KUMAR JAIN, APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF DELHI AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Criminal Appeal No. ... of 1995 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3768 of 1994),
decided on January 23, 1995.
Section 482 - Jurisdiction of High Court - The court held that the High Court failed to distinguish its separate powers under Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It emphasized that the Court of Session, being subordinate to the High Court, is subject to scrutiny by the High Court under its inherent power under Section 482. The High Court's dismissal of the petition under the premise that a second revision petition does not lie before it was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the High Court for reconsideration.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant moved the High Court of Delhi under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which the High Court assumed to be under Section 397(3) and dismissed, stating that the revision petition preferred by the appellant had been dismissed by the Court of Session.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the High Court failed to distinguish its separate powers under Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It emphasized the High Court's inherent power to scrutinize the proceedings of the Court of Session and set aside the impugned order, remitting the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration.
Issues: The issues revolved around the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the dismissal of the appellant's petition based on the premise that a second revision petition does not lie before the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 to scrutinize the proceedings of the Court of Session, being subordinate to the High Court, and set aside the High Court's dismissal of the petition, remitting the matter back for reconsideration.
Final Decision: The impugned order of the High Court was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the High Court for reconsideration.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant had moved the High Court of Delhi in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking its inherent jurisdiction. The High Court assumed the petition to be as if one under Section 397(2) [sic 397(3)l of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which according to it did not lie since the revision petition preferred by the appellant had been dismissed by the Court of Session. We are of the view that the High Court failed to distinguish its separate powers under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as also under Section 482 of the said Code. It is true that a second revision petition does not lie before the High Court when one is dismissed by the Court of Session. Still the Court of Session is a court subordinate to the High Court and, as such, its proceedings are open to scrutiny by the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court in these circumstances, should not have dismissed the petition of the appellant on the premise as it has done. It is otherwise open to the High Court not to interfere in a matter when examining a case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration. It is ordered accordingly.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
