Present: Mr.Vijay Rana Advocate Vs. the State of Punjab and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1153900
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJun-30-2014
AppellantPresent: Mr.Vijay Rana Advocate
RespondentThe State of Punjab and Another
Excerpt:
crm-m-19224-2014 1 in the punjab & haryana high court at chandigarh crm-m-19224-2014 date of decision : 30.06.2014 jinder singh tanda ..petitioner versus the state of punjab and another ..respondents coram: hon'ble mrs.justice rekha mittal present: mr.vijay rana, advocate for the petitioner. rekha mittal, j.(oral) the petitioner has preferred the instant petition by invoking the jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure (in short 'cr.p.c.') seeking quashing of fir no.9 dated 19.01.2012 lodged in the police station city phagwara, district kapurthala for offence punishable under sections 419, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120-b of the indian penal code (annexure p1) and order dated 27.03.2012 passed by the sub divisional judicial magistrate, phagwara, district kapurthala (annexure p4) whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial. counsel for the petitioner is fair enough to concede that earlier the petitioner filed a similar petition crm-m-2159-2014 which was disposed of by this court on january 21, 2014 giving liberty to the petitioner to raise all available pleas before the trial court. a relevant extract from order dated january 21, 2014 reads as follows:- davinder kumar 2014.07.04 09:33 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crm-m-19224-2014 2 “counsel for the petitioner states that the petition may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to raise all available pleas before the trial court. dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid.”. keeping in view the order extracted above, the petitioner cannot be permitted to agitate the same matter again and again before this court when otherwise he is guilty of misusing the process of court. this apart, the order summoning the petitioner by the trial court for the aforesaid offences is amenable to revisional jurisdiction. the hon'ble supreme court of india in mohit alias sonu and another versus state of uttar pradesh and another (2013) 7 supreme court cases 789 has laid down that when a specific remedy is available to challenge an order, the court should be reluctant to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction under section 482 of the cr.p.c.a relevant extract from para 28 reads as follows:- “so far as the inherent power of the high court as contained in section 482 of cr.p.c.is concerned, the law in this regard is set at rest by this court in a catena of decisions. however, we would like to reiterate that when an order, not interlocutory in nature, can be assailed in the high court in revisional jurisdiction, then there should be a bar in invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the high court. in other words, inherent power of the court can be exercised when there is no remedy provided in the code of criminal procedure for redressal of the grievance. it is well settled that the inherent power of the court can ordinarily be exercised when there is no express provision in the code under which order impugned can be challenged.”. davinder kumar 2014.07.04 09:33 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crm-m-19224-2014 3 for the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed in limine. (rekha mittal) judge june 30, 2014. davinder kumar davinder kumar 2014.07.04 09:33 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

CRM-M-19224-2014 1 IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19224-2014 Date of decision : 30.06.2014 Jinder Singh Tanda ..Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL Present: Mr.Vijay Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

REKHA MITTAL, J.(ORAL) The petitioner has preferred the instant petition by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of FIR No.9 dated 19.01.2012 lodged in the Police Station City Phagwara, District Kapurthala for offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (Annexure P1) and order dated 27.03.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara, District Kapurthala (Annexure P4) whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial.

Counsel for the petitioner is fair enough to concede that earlier the petitioner filed a similar petition CRM-M-2159-2014 which was disposed of by this Court on January 21, 2014 giving liberty to the petitioner to raise all available pleas before the trial Court.

A relevant extract from order dated January 21, 2014 reads as follows:- Davinder Kumar 2014.07.04 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19224-2014 2 “Counsel for the petitioner states that the petition may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to raise all available pleas before the trial Court.

Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid.”

.

Keeping in view the order extracted above, the petitioner cannot be permitted to agitate the same matter again and again before this Court when otherwise he is guilty of misusing the process of Court.

This apart, the order summoning the petitioner by the trial Court for the aforesaid offences is amenable to revisional jurisdiction.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mohit alias Sonu and another versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 789 has laid down that when a specific remedy is available to challenge an order, the Court should be reluctant to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.A relevant extract from para 28 reads as follows:- “So far as the inherent power of the High Court as contained in Section 482 of Cr.P.C.is concerned, the law in this regard is set at rest by this Court in a catena of decisions.

However, we would like to reiterate that when an order, not interlocutory in nature, can be assailed in the High Court in revisional jurisdiction, then there should be a bar in invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.

In other words, inherent power of the Court can be exercised when there is no remedy provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure for redressal of the grievance.

It is well settled that the inherent power of the Court can ordinarily be exercised when there is no express provision in the Code under which order impugned can be challenged.”

.

Davinder Kumar 2014.07.04 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19224-2014 3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed in limine.

(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE June 30, 2014.

Davinder Kumar Davinder Kumar 2014.07.04 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document