Back
High Court Of Delhi
KAVITA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) 2744 of 1996
Decided On : 09/09/1999
Section 482, 483, 209, 227 & 228-Sessions trial case — Discharge of accused by the committing Magistrate without committing the case to Sessions Court — Glaring illegality — Order of discharge set aside.
Held:
Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enjoins upon every High Court to so exercise its continuous superintendence over the Court of Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it as to ensure that there is an expeditious and proper disposal of cases by such Magistrates. Thus, the supervisory or visitorial jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 483 Cr.P.C. is of paramount importance to examine correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed as also regularity of the proceedings of all inferior Criminal Courts. Thus, on a conjoint reading of Sections 482 and 4S3 Cr.P.C., I am of the opinion that if the glaring illegality or injustice stares the Court in the face, then notwithstanding the prohibition contained in Section 397(3) Cr.P.C., the Court must exercise the inherent powers to annual that illegality or injustice and in that situation the High Court can exercise its inherent powers even at the instance of a private party though the State may not have thought fit to challenge the said illegality or injustice by filing appropriate proceedings.
In the instant case, a charge sheet was filed by the police under Sections 498-A/406/376/420/495/120-B/511 IPC Admittedly, one of the offences in the charge sheet is Section 376 IPC, which is exclusively friable by Sessions Court. On perusal of the impugned order dated 11.9.1995 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, it appears mat the learned Magistrate launched on a process of satisfying himself that a prima facie case has been made out on merits. He has assigned reasons about his reluctance to lake cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 495/420/376/120-B/511 IPC. Thus, in effect, the learned Magistrate has discharged the respondents of the aforesaid offences. In my opinion, the whole approach of the learned Magistrate in discharging the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 495/420/376/120-B/511 IPC is erroneous inasmuch as under Section 209 of the Code he had no jurisdiction to go into merits even for a prima facie satisfaction. Under Section 209 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has simply to commit the case to the Court of Sessions and the Sessions Judge can discharge the accused under Section 227 of the Code, if satisfied that from the material placed before him, no offence appeals to have been made out. Reference in this connection be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Gandhi v. Union of India and Ors. (1979 CLR (SC) 14. Needless to say that Section 228 of the Code enjoins tin; Sessions Judge to transfer the case to the committal Court if he is of the opinion that there is ground for presumption that the accused has committed an offence which is not exclusively friable by the Court of Sessions. In this view of the matter, I am constrained to observe that the impugned order dated 11.9.1995 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate discharging the respondents No. 2 to 5 of the offences punishable under Sections 495/420/376/120-5/5/7 IPC is an affront to law which could not be overlooked as it has resulted in miscarriage of justice. thereforee, it has become necessary to exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 483 Cr.P.C. to annul the said manifest illegality.
( 1 ) BY this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 11. 9. 1995 passed by Shri V. P. Kandpal, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi discharging the respondents No. 2 to 5 of the offences charged under Sections 495/420/376/120-B/511 IPC.
( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner lodged FIR No. 65/95 at the Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. Investigation pursuant to the said FIR culminated into submission of the charge sheet under Sections 498-A/406/376/420/495/120-B/511 Indian Penal Code against the respondents No. 2 to 5. On submission of the charge sheet, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate launched on a process of satisfying himself that a prima facie case has been made out on the merits, and passed a detailed order refusing to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 495/420/376/120-B/511 Indian Penal Code against the respondents. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner moved the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi by filing a revision petition which was rejected vide orders dated 6. 9. 1996 passed in Crl. (R) No. 5/96. Not satisfied with the dismissal of the revision, the petitioner has come up before this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C.
( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 5 has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. According to the learned counsel, the present petition is a second revision petition against the impugned order dated 11. 9. 1995 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, which is expressly barred by Section 397 (3) Cr. P. C. and as such this Court cannot act as second revisional court under the garb of exercising inherent powers. Reliance is placed in Deepti Vs. Akhil Rai and others (JT 1995 (7) SC 175); Dharampal and others Vs. Smt. Ramshri and others (AIR 1993 SC 1361); Krishnan and another Vs. Krishnaveni and another (AIR 1997 SC 987), 1997 (1) Supreme (Cr.) 109.
( 4 ) IT is pertinent to mention that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose. In Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 47, it was held: "the High Court possessed and possesses the inherent powers to be exercised ex debito justice to do the real and the substantial justitiae for the administration of which alone Courts exist".
( 5 ) IN a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Arun Shankar Shukla Vs. State of UP and others (JT 1999 (4) SC 634), it was held that inherent powers are in the nature of extra ordinary powers to be used sparingly for achieving the object mentioned in Section 482 of the Code in cases where there is no express provision empowering the High Court to achieve the said object. In Raj Kapoor v. State, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 258, it was held that the amplitude of the inherent powers under Section 482 remain unaffected under Section 397. In Jitender Kumar Jain Vs. State of Delhi and others (1999 0 SCC (Cr) 77), it was held that "it is true that a second revision petition does not lie before the High Court when one is dismissed by the Court of Sessions. 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".
( 6 ) ON a conspectus analysis of all these authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court, it is absolutely clear that inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. can be exercised for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse the process of the Court and this Court considers it interference absolutely necessary, in that event provision of sub-Section (3) of Section 397 Cr. P. C. cannot limit or affect the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. But it has to be borne in mind that extraordinary powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. have to
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
