ORAL ORDER :- Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners, the learned advocate for respondent No.1 and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent No.2-State, at great length.

2. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code against the order of issuance of process, is maintainable. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court may refuse to entertain the writ petition or petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code by observing that the appropriate remedy is to file revision in such case before the Sessions Court.

3. The preliminary objection to the maintainability of this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), has been raised in view of the decision of this Court in V. K. Jain and ors. vs. Pratap V. Padode and anr., 2005(3) Mh.L.J. 778 and Saket Gore and ors. vs. Aba Dhavalu Bagul and anr., 2005 All. M.R. (Cri.) 2514 wherein this Court (Single Judge) after considering the various judgments of the Apex Court and the High Courts and specially Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal, 2004(4) Mh.L.J. 274, Subramanium Sethuraman vs. State of Maharashtra, 2005( 1) Mh.L.J. 626 has concluded

"Thus as in my opinion, when, the applicants have an efficacious remedy of preferring revision before the Sessions Court against the order issuing process they should not be deprived of the same. Hence, in view of the discussion in the foregoing paras, in my opinion, it would be appropriate that the applicants prefer a revision before the concerned Sessions Court against the order issuing process against them."

3-A. Respondent No.1, in answer to the above main submission as raised y the petitioner, by distinguishing the facts and circumstances of the above case d further submitted that the Apex Courts decision in Adalat Prasad and ubramanium Sethuraman (supra) nowhere expressed that the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and/or under section 482 of Criminal procedure Code against the order of issuance of process, is barred or not maintainable. On the contrary in both these cases also, the Apex Court has entertained the petitions under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code and quashed and order of issuance or process.

4. In Mis Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. and ors. vs. Mh. Sharajul Haque and others, AIR 2005 SC 9, the Apex Court again without referring to Adalat Prasad and Subramanium Sethuraman (supra) has entertained the petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code and quashed the complaint of fence of cheating under sections 406, 409 and 418 of Indian Penal Code ,P.C.). The Apex Court in M/s Zandu Pharmaceuticals (supra) in para 8 iterated the purpose and object of availing section 482, Criminal Procedure ode which is reproduced as under :_

"Exercise of power under section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognized and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All Courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provisi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document