Allahabad High Court
Anish Shah vs State Of U.P. & 9 Others on 3 November, 2017
Bench: J.J. Munir
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 51
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36127 of 2017
Applicant :- Anish Shah
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & 9 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
The applicant, who is the complainant of complaint case no. 3250 of 2014, Abdul Anish Shah vs. Abdul Aziz Shah and others, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, P.S. Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Second, Kanpur Nagar has come up with a prayer that the trial court be directed to decide the aforesaid complaint case within some stipulated period of time to be determined by this Court.
Earlier the applicant had filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 6130 of 2016 to the same effect and for the same relief as the one presently made.
Learned AGA Sri Sanjay Tripathi has taken serious objection to the prayer made in this application on the ground that it is a second application for the same relief because in the application earlier decided being Application U/S 482 No. 6130 of 2016, this Court has issued a direction by an order dated 29.02.2016 directing the trial court to decide the complaint expeditiously fixing short dates. The learned AGA contends that in case the trial court is not abiding by the orders earlier passed by this Court the remedy of the applicant is to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court.
I am not in agreement with the contention of the learned AGA. Powers exercised by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are supplemented by powers available under Section 483 Cr.P.C. that are powers of continuous superintendence available to this Court over the courts of Magistrate alone. Continuous superintendence would vest this Court with the authority to issue further directions in a matter as the present one where there is no relief that ends the cause of action with the order earlier passed and where renewed prayer can always be made. Section 483 Cr.P.C. reads as under:
"483. Duty of High Court to exercise continuous superintendence over Courts of Judicial Magistrates. -- Every High Court shall so exercise its superintendence over the Courts of Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it as to ensure that there is an expeditious and proper disposal of cases by such Magistrate."
The scope and amplitude powers of the High Court that are in the nature of a duty cast upon every High Court have received attention of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Krishnan and another vs. Krishnaveni and another, (1997) 4 SCC 241. Paragraph 6 of the report is relevant:
"Section 401 of the code gives to every High Court the power of revision. Sub-Section (1) of the said section provides that in the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledges, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by Sections 386, 389 and 391 and on a Court of Sessions by Section 307. Apart form the express power under Section 397 (1), the High Court has been invested with suo motu power under Section 401 to exercise revisional power. In addition, Section 482 saves inherent powers of the High Court postulating that:
"Nothing in this 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"
Section 483 enjoins upon every high Court to so exercise its continuous superintendence over the Courts of Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it as to ensure that there is an expeditious and proper disposal of cases by such Magistrates. It is, therefore, clear that the power of the High Court of continuous supervisory jurisdiction is of paramount importance to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed as also regularity of the proceedings of all inferior criminal courts." (Emphasis in italics supplied)
A reading of the aforesaid exposition of law by their Lordships leaves no manner of a doubt that it is the duty not only a power of this Court to exercise continuous superintendence over the courts of Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it, as distinguished from Sessions Judges, so as to ensure that there is an expeditious disposal of cases by such Magistrates. The power of superintendence in the matter of expeditious disposal by this Court of cases before the courts of Judicial Magistrate is a statutory duty cast upon this Court by Section 483 Cr.P.C.
Therefore, in exercise of powers under Section 483 Cr.P.C., if not under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court directs the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Second, Kanpur Dehat to bear caution to comply with the orders earlier passed in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 36378 of 2016 and to decide the complaint case in question within a period of one year unless proceedings are interdicted by some order of stay of a court of competent jurisdiction.
This application stands accordingly disposed of with the directions made above.
Order Date :- 3.11.2017
Imroz
