Judgment:
1 INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI Cr.M.P.(DB)No.2007of2012 BidyaLakhanBhagat Petitioner Versus 1.TheStateofJharkhand 2.DevDasBhagat ... ... ... Opp.Parties CORAM: HON'BLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL HON'BLEMR.JUSTICEPRASHANTKUMAR ForthePetitioner : Mr.JitendraS.Singh FortheRespondent: Mr.VijayKumarGupta,A.P.P. OrderNo.5/Dated:19 th December2012 PerD.N.Patel,J
1) Thepresentapplicationhasbeenpreferredunder378oftheCodeof Criminal Procedure for getting Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment and order dated 17th July 2012 passed by the learned Chief JudicialMagistrate,LateharinComplaintCaseNo.212of2008/TrialNo. 222of2012wherebythecomplaintcasefiledbythepetitionerhasbeen dismissed.
2) Thecomplaintcasewasfiledbythecomplainantpetitionerbefore theChiefJudicialMagistrate,Lateharforallegedlycommittinganoffence underSection420oftheIndianPenalCodeagainsttheOppositeParty No .2 . The case of the complainantpetitioner, as per the complaint petition,isthatoppositepartyNo.2requestedthecomplainantpetitioner toofferhimselfasaguarantorfortheloanforwhichhehadappliedtothe Jharkhand State Adivasi CoOperative Development Corporation Ltd., DaltonganjtothetuneofRs.2,96,548/andthecomplainantpetitionerin good faith signed the agreement paper as the guarantor for the loan amount.Subsequently,thecorporationissuedanoticetothecomplainant 2 petitionershiftingtheliabilityofpaymentofloanamountoftheopposite partyno.2uponhim.Furthercaseofthecomplainantpetitioneristhat oppositepartyno.2hascommittedbreachoftrustofagreement.
3) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though there is provisionforstatutoryappealunderthenewlyinsertedprovisotoSection 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner is the complainant,hehaspreferredthisappealforgrantofSpecialLeaveto AppealunderSection378(4)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure.Counsel forthepetitionerhaspointedoutseveralaspectsofthematterbasedupon theevidencerecordedbythetrialCourtandhassubmittedthatSpecial LeavetoAppealmaykindlybegrantedbecausethereareseveralerrorson thefactsandlaw,committedbythetrialCourt.
4) CounselfortheStateA.P.P.hastakenapreliminaryobjectionasto statutory provision is provided under Section 372 Code of Criminal Procedure, but Special Leave to Appeal may not be granted to the petitionerandlettherightofstatutoryappealbeexhaustedandthereafter theymaycometothisCourt.ThelearnedA.P.P.alsosubmittedthatthe provision ofCodeofCriminalProcedurehasbeenamendedwitheffect from31stDecember,2009basedupon154threportoftheLawCommission ofIndia.ItissubmittedbytheA.P.P.thatwheneverstatutoryprovisionof preferringanappealisgivenbylaw,theremedymustbeexhaustedfirst and,thereafter,theycanapproachthisCourt.ThelearnedA.P.P.hasalso taken analogy from writ petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for violation of fundamental rights and in those cases,normallytheHon'bleSupremeCourtissendingthepetitionertothe concerned High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3 Similarly,againstthejudgmentandorderoflearnedSingleJudgeofthe HighCourt,wheneverLettersPatentAppealistenable,normallySpecial Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is not granted.Similarly,counselfortheStatehasreliedupondecisionsrendered bytheFullBenchofHon'blePatnaHighCourtinSyedZafrulHassanVs. State (F.B.) reported in 1986 PLJR, 274 that whenever there is a concurrent jurisdiction for grant of anticipatory bail i.e. both by the SessionsCourtaswellasbytheHighCourt,normallytheanticipatorybail applicationsshouldbepreferredbeforetheSessionsCourt.Inviewofthis analogy,itissubmittedbythecounselfortheStatethatinthefactsofthe presentcase,thepartiesarenotremedyless.Theyhavearighttoprefer an statutory appeal against the very judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,LateharbeforetheSessionsCourt,Latehar.Thus,theSpecial LeavetoAppealmaynotbegrantedtothepetitioner.CounselfortheState hasalsopointedoutthatwhenevervictimisalsothecomplainanthimself, theninallsuchcasesstatutoryprovisionofSection372oftheCodeof CriminalProcedureshouldberesortedtoandwheneverthecomplainant isnotthevictimlikethecasesinwhichthecomplainantisIncometax OfficerortheofficeroftheLabourDepartment,ortheOfficeroftheFood AdulterationDepartment,inallthosecases,complainantandthevictims aredifferentpersons,inthosecases,insteadofpreferringanappealunder Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they can prefer an applicationunderSection378(4)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedurefor gettingSpecialLeavetoAppeal.Butwheneverthecomplainantandthe victimarethesameperson,thenstatutoryrightofpreferringappealmust beavailedfirstandinthosecircumstances,withoutpreferringanappeal 4 underSection372oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,SpecialLeaveto AppealunderSection378(4)oftheCodeofCriminalProceduremaynot beentertainedbythisCourt.
5) Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decisions reported in 2011 Maharastra Cr.L.J.
3473; 2011(1) Crimes, 647, M.P.; 2011(6)MaharastraCr.L.J.165;(2010)5S.C.C.613.Wehaveperused the aforesaid decisions. The facts of the present case are absolutely different because the present petitioner is the victim as well as the complainantand,therefore,hehasremedyofSection372oftheCodeof Criminal Procedure available to him to file an appeal against the impugnedjudgmentandorderpassedbythe Chief JudicialMagistrate, Latehar,insteadofpreferringanapplicationforgrantingSpecialLeaveto AppealunderSection378(4)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure.
6) Havingheardlearnedcounselforboththesidesandlookingtothe preliminaryobjectionraisedbytheA.P.P.itappearsthatthepresentappeal preferred under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure deservestobedismissedmainlyforthefollowingreasons: (I) Thepresentpetitioneristhecomplainantaswell as victim. He has preferred a complaint case under under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code before the Chief JudicialMagistrate,Latehar. (II) ThelearnedtrialCourtbyjudgmentandorder dated17thJuly2012passedinComplaintCaseNo.212of 2008dismissedthecomplaintpreferredbythepetitioner. (III) Againstthesaidjudgmentandorder,thereisa remedyofappealasprovidedundertheprovisoofSectio”
372. ftheCodeofCriminalProcedure.Section372ofthe CodeofCriminalProcedurereadsasunder:
372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided. - No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force. Provided that the victim shall have to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court. (Emphasis supplied) (IV) Theaforesaidprovisohasbeeninsertedbyway ofamendmentintheCodeofCriminalProcedurewitheffect from31stDecember,2009baseduponthe154threportgiven bytheLawCommissionofIndia. (V) Thus,thepetitioner,whoisalsothevictim,he hasstatutoryrighttopreferanappealagainsttheimpugned judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,Latehar. (VI) The present application has been preferred by thepetitionersunderSection378(4)oftheCodeofCriminal Procedureforgettingleavetoappeal.Section378(4)ofthe CodeofCriminalProcedurereadsasunder:
378. Appealincaseofacquittal. (1) (2) (3) (4) If such an order of' acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon Complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants, Special Leave to Appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court. (5) (6) (Emphasissupplied) 6 (VII) Inviewoftheaforesaidsubsection,thepresent applicationhasbeenpreferredforgettingSpecialLeaveto Appeal.Weare notin agreementwiththe counsel forthe petitioners mainly for the reason that in the facts of the presentcase, whenthevictimandthecomplainantarethe sameperson(s), thenthecomplainanthasarighttoprefer statutoryappealunderSection372oftheCodeofCriminal Procedureand,therefore,theSpecialLeavetoAppealcannot begrantedinthefactsandcircumstancesofthepresentcase. Wheneverthestatutoryappealisprovided,thepartieshave toavailthestatutoryrighttopreferanappeal. (VIII) Itfurtherappearsthatinthefactsofthepresent case and also looking to both the aforesaid provisions i.e. Section 372 and 378(4), when the complainant is not the victim like in the case, an officer of the Incometax Department, or the Labour Department or the Food Adulteration Department, etc, though they have preferred the complaintcase, but, the victims are somebody else, in thosecases,applicationunderSection378(2)oftheCodeof CriminalProcedureistenableatlaw, becausetheyhaveno right toprefer the statutoryappeal under the provision of Section372oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure.Whereas,the casesinwhichthecomplainantandthevictimarethesame person,thentheyhavetoavailthestatutoryremedybyway of appeal instead of preferring an application for getting SpecialLeavetoAppealdirectlytotheHighCourt. 7 (IX) Moreover,inajudicialhierarchy,wheneverany appeal or application is tenable at law before the lower Court,thenalwaystheapplicantshouldapproachthelower forumfirstsothatafterexhaustingthesaidremedy,stillif the petitioner is aggrieved, he can approach the higher forum.Thus,thepetitionerisnotremedyless.Moreover,the higherforumwillhaveanadvantageofonemorejudgment overandabove,thejudgmentoflowerCourtonthepointof factsandlaw.Inajudicialhierarchy,insteadofapproaching directlyhigherforum,iflawpermits,alwaysmattershould befiledinlowerforum.Againstthejudgmentandorderof learned Single Judge of the High Court, whenever Letters Patent Appeal or any appeal, is tenable, normally Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of Indiaisnotgranted.
7) Thus,inthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,thevictimandthe complainantbeingthesamepersonandthecomplaintpetition,registered bythecomplainantpetitionerfortheoffenceunderSections420ofthe IndianPenalCode,havingbeendismissedbythelearnedChiefJudicial Magistrate,heshouldfirstexhausttheremedyavailabletohimunderthe provisionofSection372oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,bypreferring anappealbeforethelearnedSessionsJudge,Latehar.
8) Asacumulativeeffectoftheaforesaidfactsandreasonsandjudicial pronouncements,weherebyrefusetograntleavetoAppealtothepresent petitionerunderSection378(4)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedureUbijus ibi remedum. Petitioner not being remedyless under proviso to Sectio”
372. ftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,lettheremedybywayofstatutory appealbeexhaustedbyhimfirst. Thus,thisCriminalMisc.Petitionisherebydismissed. (D.N.Patel,J) (PrashantKumar,J) Raman/Binit