Allahabad High Court
Jauhari And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 September, 2016
Bench: Pramod Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 48
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29064 of 2016
Applicant :- Jauhari And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.
Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra Pal Singh Jadaun, counsel for opposite party no.-2, AGA for State opposite party no.-1. The vakalatnama filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2 taken on record.
The order of cognizance and summoning dated 24.11.2012 had become final which was passed on factual aspect and on the basis of evidence available before trial court. Thereafter accused applicant had moved application under section 245(2) Cr.P.C. for his discharge and with prayer to quash order of summoning dated 24.11.2012.
After affording opportunity of hearing to parties in concerned Complaint Case No. 1203 of 2012 (Mahesh Chandra Vs. Jauhari & others), the Judicial Magistrate, Hathras had rejected said application under section 245(2) Cr.P.C. by its order dated 25.7.2016 with observation that order of summoning has been confirmed even by revisional court and have become final, and legally said order of summoning cannot be interfered by Magistrate.
Against said order of trial court, memo of revision was preferred before the Court of Sessions Judge, Hathras. Said revision was dismissed in limne at the time of admission, confirming the order of Magistrate; and thereafter it was directed to office to complete formality of registering said petition as miscellaneous case. Against order dated 5.9.2016 of Sessions Judge, Hathras, present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that order of revisional court exercising revisional jurisdiction is erroneous, because at the time of exercising such jurisdiction under section 397 Cr.P.C., the petition cannot be registered as miscellaneous case. This contention of applicant side is unacceptable.
Before passing of any order on memorandum/ petition for revision or any case or appeal etc., it is not known as to what order would be passed by Court. Said order may be passed for admitting any petition as regular revision, regular appeal or anything like that. Such order may be passed on defective or non-admitted petition for treating it miscelleneous case. Only after the consideration by court and its order in that regard, it is known as to what should be the nature of such petition, for its nomenclature and for tracing it in future. Petitions are registered only after passing of the order of the court, and mentioning its number on any prticular register kept for the particular type of cases, which is only a clerical job to be performed by the office in accordance with directions of the Court.
In this matter when memorandum of revision was presented by applicant before the office of Sessions Court, but that petition was not admitted as any particular type of case. Office cannot, suo moto, register a petition/ memorandum as any particular type of case, unless it is specifically ordered by court. After considering it the court found that revisional court jurisdiction could not be exercised for admitting said memorandum as regular revision, therefore it had dismissed the said memorandum/ petition of criminal revision, but for convenience of court and for public, as well as in accordance with rules, it was obligatory on part of court and concerned office to register it at place from where it can be located in future for purposes of issuance of certified copies or inspection etc. Accordingly Sessions Court had directed the office to register the memorandum of revision mentioning its petition as miscellaneous case, so that certified copy may be issued. This was a proper order. There appears no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order that may require exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this court. Therefore, this application is dismissed.
However, considering the alternative argument of counsel for the applicant, it is observed that when application is moved for bail then same may be disposed of expeditiously. The applicants are directed to surrender before trial court immediately.
Order Date :- 28.9.2016
SKS
