The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the need for grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice to warrant interference.

JUDGMENT :

1. This review application has been filed for review of the judgment and order dated 20.01.2021, passed by this Court in petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, No.4737 of 2020 (Siddh Nath Pandey vs. State of U.P. and another).

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

3. Perusal of record shows that the above referred petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed by the petitioner for quashing of the judgment and order dated 12.07.2018, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vth Jaunpur in Complaint Case No.1097 of 2018 (Sanju Vs. Siddha Nath Pandey), as well as to quash the order dated 28.09.2020, passed by learned Special Judge POCSO Act I/Additional Session Judge, Jaunpur in Criminal Revision No.206 of 2018 (Siddha Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P.). After hearing learned counsel for parties, the said petition under Article 227 was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 20.01.2021, which is quoted as under;

‘‘The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the Judgement and order dated 12.07.2018 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, V Jaunpur, in Complaint Case No. 1097 of 2018 (Sanju Vs. Siddha Nath Pandey) and order dated 28.09.2020 passed by learned Special Judge POCSO Act I/Additional Session Judge, Jaunpur in Criminal Revision No. 206 of 2018 (Siddha Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P.)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no.2 filed a complaint against the petitioner making false and baseless allegations. It was submitted that respondent no.2 is not an aggrieved party and the allegations that sale deed was got executed by impersonation in place of dead person is false and baseless. The dispute is civil in nature and that the respondent no.2 is neither vendor nor vendee and that he has no locus to file the impugned complaint. It was further argued that pursuant to the order dated 06.03.2017 passed by this Court, the petitioner moved a discharge application, which has been rejected by the Court below vide impugned order dated 12.07.2018 without considering the entire facts and law. It was further argued that against the said order, revision was filed, which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 28.09.2020 in a routine manner without considering the facts in correct perspective. Learned counsel has further submitted that both the impugned orders are against the facts and law and thus is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3)CCSC 1319 (SC) Dalveer Bhandari and Harji Singh Bedi Vs. State by Public Prosecutor Madras. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the petition and argued that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders.

The instant petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that in supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over subordinate Courts, the scope of judicial review is very limited and narrow. It is not to correct the errors in the orders of the court below but to remove manifest and patent errors of law and jurisdiction without acting as an appellate authority. This power involves a duty on the High Court to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. But this power does not vest the High Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fund