Allahabad High Court
Ajay Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:77427
Court No. - 92
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46175 of 2023
Applicant :- Ajay Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Kr. Singh, learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 16.10.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No. 145 of 2023 (Ajay Singh vs. State of U.P. and another), arising out of impugned summoning order dated 28.2.2023 in Criminal Complaint Case No. 24325 of 2023 (Amar Singh vs. Ajay Singh), u/s 138 N.I. Act, as well as entire proceeding of the complaint case including the non-bailable warrant dated 2.11.2023, pending before Metropolitan Magistrate-III, Kanpur Nagar.
3. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned A.G.A. that present application has been filed by the applicant after availing remedy of revision. Therefore, it will amount to second revision by the same party which is prohibited u/s 397(3) Cr.P.C. It is also submitted by learned AGA that as per order of the Apex Court passed in the case of Radhey Shyam Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423, wherein it is observed that all the judicial orders will be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. The Apex Court in the case of Shakuntala Devi & Others Vs. Chamru Mahto & Another; reported in 2009 (3) SCC 310 as well as in the case of Krishnan & Another Vs. Krishnaveni & Another reported in (1997) 4 SCC 241 observed that despite bar of second revision u/s 397(3) Cr.P.C., inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is still available but that can be invoked in appropriate cases as bar u/s 397(3) Cr.P.C. can be lifted in special cases. In Krishnan's case (supra), the Apex Court laid down the guidelines where High Court should entertain Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. against order of revision. Paragraph no.10 of the Krishnan's case (supra) is being quoted as under:
"10. Ordinarily, when revision has been barred by Section 397(3) of the Code, a person accused/complainant cannot be allowed to take recourse to the revision to the High Court under Section 397(1) or under inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code since it may amount to circumvention of the provisions of Section 397(3) or Section 397(2) of the Code. It is seen that the High Court has suo motu power under Section 401 and continuous supervisory jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Code. So, when the High Court on examination of the record finds that there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the courts or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice or order passed or sentence imposed by the Magistrate requires correction, it is but the duty of the High Court to have it corrected at the inception lest grave miscarriage of justice would ensue. It is, therefore, to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process that the High Court is preserved with inherent power and would be justified, under such circumstances, to exercise the inherent power and in an appropriate case even revisional power under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of the Code. As stated earlier, it may be exercised sparingly so as to avoid needless multiplicity of procedure, unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of proceedings. The object of criminal trial is to render public justice, to punish the criminal and to see that the trial is concluded expeditiously before the memory of the witness fades out. The recent trend is to delay the trial and threaten the witness or to win over the witness by promise or inducement. These malpractices need to be curbed and public justice can be ensured only when trial is conducted expeditiously."
5. This Court is of the view that Apex Court clearly observed in the aforesaid judgment that all the judicial orders will be challenged in the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, judicial orders should normally be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, Apex Court in the case of Prabhu Chawla Vs. State of Rajasthan and another; (2015) 17 SCC 562 observed that alternative remedy is not a bar to exercise jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. in exceptional case. Therefore, in exceptional case application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. may be entertained against judicial order in the interest of justice.
6. In the present case, the applicant could not make out the case of exceptional nature, which could persuade this Court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. In view of the above legal position, applicant is permitted to file petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging the impugned judicial order(s).
8. With the aforesaid observation, the present application is dismissed.
9. Certified copy of the impugned order, if any, may be returned to learned counsel for the applicant after retaining xerox copy of the same.
Order Date :- 1.5.2024
Vandana
