Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Anil Kumar Sood – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for setting aside the order dated 9th September 2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Chamba (learned Revisional Court), vide which the order dated 17.1.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Dalhousie (learned Trial Court) was upheld. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. It was asserted that the complainant is a permanent resident of Balloon Bazaar, Dalhousie District, Chamba. He is facing proceedings under the Public Premises Act before the Estate Officer, Dalhousie Cantonment Board. The complainant applied for the demarcation of property No. 7, bearing survey No. 95, Balloon Bazaar, Dalhousie Cantonment. A document was prepared on 27th October 1997, showing the spot position. This document was signed by the complainant. A certified copy of the document was also issued to the complainant by the Executive Officer. The
The High Court retains inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to prevent miscarriages of justice, even when revisional powers are restricted by Section 397(3).
The court affirmed that disputes over property rights are civil in nature, and criminal proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are not warranted when a civil remedy is available.
High Courts can exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent injustice, even if alternate remedies are available.
Revision under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. not maintainable against the revisionary order of the Sessions Judge - No grounds for exercise of inherent power by this Court unde....
The court upheld the ex-parte maintenance order, affirming that proper service was established and the Magistrate's discretion in service methods is valid under the Criminal Procedure Code.
The court emphasized the procedural propriety requiring litigants to first approach subordinate courts before the High Court unless exceptional circumstances justify bypassing this route.
The High Court can exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to rectify jurisdictional errors, even when a second revision is barred under Section 397(3).
The court affirmed that a petitioner lacks locus standi in criminal matters and that the allegations did not constitute a cognizable offence under IPC.
A magistrate cannot award maintenance to a major married daughter under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
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
