Allahabad High Court
Parvez Akhtar @ Dabbu vs State Of U.P. & Another on 9 September, 2015
Bench: Manoj Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?'AFR'
Court No. - 48
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16160 of 2015
Applicant :- Parvez Akhtar @ Dabbu
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Prasad Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 29.5.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Meerut by which application 10-Kha of the applicant has been rejected.
By application 10-Kha, the applicant had prayed to the court concerned to allow the applicant, in police custody, on any date fixed, to visit the office of the Registrar, Meerut for executing a registered power of attorney in favour of his daughter so as to enable the applicant to generate funds from sale of his property for various purposes.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that mere being in custody, as an under trial prisoner, the applicant would not be deprived of his civil rights and, therefore, the court below was not legally justified in rejecting the application of the applicant.
On previous date, when the case was taken up, this Court had required the applicant's counsel to address on the question of maintainability of the application under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that since the application of the applicant has been rejected by the court below, therefore, to secure the ends of justice, the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. would be maintainable against the order passed by the court below.
Section 482 Cr.P.C. provides that nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
A bare perusal of section 482 Cr.P.C. would reveal that the inherent powers of the High Court can be exercised on existence of any of the three conditions: (a) to give effect to an order under Cr.P.C.; (b) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or (c) to secure the ends of justice.
So far as the first two conditions are concerned, they would not be applicable to the instant case inasmuch as there is no order under the Code, which requires to be given effect to and, likewise, there is no prayer to quash any proceeding to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. The third category of cases where the power can be exercised to secure the ends of justice though confers wide power to the Court but that power is to be exercised sparingly when there is no other alternative remedy left to the applicant.
Under section 38 of the Registration Act, it is provided that where a person is in jail under civil or criminal process and is unable to appear at the registration office, he shall not be required to appear for the purpose of registration of a document. Sub section (2) of section 38 of the Registration Act provides that in the case where a person is in jail, the registering officer shall either himself go to the jail in which the concerned person is confined and examine the said person or issue a commission for his examination.
In view of above, the applicant has alternative remedy under section 38(2) of the Registration Act, therefore, the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked.
The application is therefore dismissed with liberty to the applicant to invoke the provisions of Section 38(2) of the Registration Act through the appropriate authority in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 9.9.2015
Arvind
