Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Indermeet Kaur, J.
Satpal —Petitioner
versus
State & Ors. —Respondents
Crl. Rev. P. No. 882 of 2002
Decided on 16.12.2014
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sunil K. Mittal, Mr. Harsh Khanna and Mr. Anshul Mittal, Advocates
For the Respondents: Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP
Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Ms. Chaitali and Ms. Katyayini, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT:
High Court is not precluded from treating a petition under Section 397 as a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and to grant necessary relief, if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of securing the ends of justice.
Headnote:(i) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 397 and 482 — Second revision petition against order passed by Sessions Court dismissing revision — Maintainability of second revision — High Court is not precluded from treating revision petition as one u/s 482 CrPC and grant necessary relief if it was satisfied that it was necessary to do so for securing ends of justice.
(ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Cross FIR were registered regarding one incident between two brothers — Trial of both FIRs proceeded together in one Court and one one date file of one case was not put up and it got separated — Other case when taken up on next date, Magistrate closed evidence and acquitted accused persons — Complainant-petitioner of other case filed revision petition and Sessions Court dismissed revision as not maintainable against judgment of acquittal — Fit case where inherent power of High Court was exercised to secure ends of justice when two cases arising out of same incident were to be decided after being tried together.
Held: In this background, this Court thinks that this is a fit case where the inherent powers of the Court, to secure the ends of justice, should be invoked. Not allowing the petitioner to lead his evidence in FIR No.2/1989 would become a travesty of justice as in the cross FIR i.e. FIR No.182/1988, the respondent (brother of the petitioner) is successfully pursuing the trial which may well result in a conviction order against the petitioner. The petitioner who had suffered grievous injuries in the same incident of 27.10.1988 would be left with no remedy. He would not be able to prove that he was also allegedly the victim of that same incident and he also had a grievance against the respondent.
The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the petition is time barred is incorrect. The order impugned before this Court is the order dated 11.7.2002. The present petition was filed in 01.10.2002.
Under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the ends of justice is the paramount consideration which has to weigh with the Court. The Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in AIR 1979 AP 146 In Re: Puritipatti Jega Reddi had also examined this proposition and had noted that wherever warranted, irrespective of the manner in which the matter had been brought to the notice of the Court, or that the parties who had been unsuccessful in a revision before the Sessions Judge and would then be precluded from filing a second revision petition in the High Court, yet the High Court, in its inherent powers may, to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice, entertain such a petition. (Paras 20 to 22)
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
Indermeet Kaur, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.7.2002 passed by the High Court wherein the Sessions Judge on a remand by the High Court (in terms of the order of the High Court dated 08.10.2001) had, on the ground of maintainability, dismissed the petition.
2. Record shows that two cross FIRs had been registered qua the same incident of 27.10.1988, at police station Keshav Puram. In FIR No.182/1988, the complainant was Pritam Dass (respondent no.2 in the present case). In the second FIR which is FIR No.2/1989, the complainant was Satpal (petitioner in the present case). Satpal and Pritam Dass are real brothers and their father’s name is Budha Ram. Dispute had arisen within the family and the incident dated 27.10.1988 was an outcome of this acrimony between the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the orders sheets commencing from 24.7.1997 up to 20.02.1999. On all these dates which were nine dates listed before the Magistrate, both FIR Nos.182/1988 and FIR No.2/1989 were being heard and tried together. They were both listed before the same Court. However, on 19.02.1999 FIR No.182/1988 was shown to be listed; file not being available, the matter was listed for arguments on 19.3.1999. FIR No.2/1989 was, however, taken up on 20.02.1999 and not on 19.3.1999 although in both the FIRs, the previous date was the same i.e. 16.01.1999. On 20.02.1999, the matter was adjourned to 20.4.1999. Thus from 19.02.1999 both the FIRs got derailed and were taken up on separate dates.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that these being cross cases were being heard together and to avoid conflict of judgment it was also incumbent upon the Court to have heard both the cases together. Submission being that it was a deliberate attempt on the part of the Ahlmad of the Court not to have produced the file of FIR No.182/1988 on 19.02.1999 (this had also been clearly noted in the order dated 19.02.1999) in order that the two cases could get separated. Thereafter by the clever tactics of the respondent and the petitioner being unaware of the next date i.e. of 20.4.1999, the Court closed the prosecution evidence noting that no PW was present on behalf of the State. Submission being that all along it was the impression of the complainant as also of the Public Prosecutor that both the cases were being heard on the same date; only on one date i.e. on 20.4.1999 where the Court had noted that there was no witness on behalf of the prosecution, the Court had closed the prosecution evidence. On the same date itself, the Court had acquitted the respondents.
5. These submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are borne out from the record. The record does evidence that both the FIRs were being heard and tried together but on 19.02.1999 the file of FIR No.182/1988 was not traceable by the Ahlmed. On that date FIR No.182/1988 listed for 19.3.1999 . FIR No. 2/1989 was not taken up on 19.02.1999 which was the actual date of hearing but was taken on 20.02.1999. Thereafter on the following date i.e. on 24.04.1999 the evidence of the prosecution stood closed. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner being that the petitioner/complainant in FIR No.2/1999 was under the bonafide impression that since both the FIRs were being heard and tried together the next date after 19.02.1999 was 19.3.1999 in both the cases. Further submission being that it was a deliberate tactic on the part of the respondent to get the FIR No. 2/1999 detached and thereby to obtain an order of the closure of the evidence of the prosecution. Obviously, the complainant/petitioner being unaware of the date of 20.4.1999 was not represented. This Court notes that neither the public Prosecutor nor the complainant was present on the said date i.e. on 20.4.1999 when the evidence of the prosecution stood closed and the respondent/accused stood acquitted.
6. The complainant was aggrieved by thi
