Lingamgunta Narayana Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3616 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3616 AP
Judgement Date : 17 September, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Lingamgunta Narayana Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 17 September, 2021

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                    WRIT PETITION No.20458 of 2021

ORDER:-

         This Writ Petition is filed seeking mandamus declaring the

action of the 2nd respondent in not concluding the proceedings

initiated by the Executive Magistrate as illegal and

unconstitutional.

This Court is of the considered view that this Writ Petition

can be disposed of on the ground of its maintainability. Since the

writ petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the proceedings,

which are pending before the learned Executive Magistrate

initiated under Section 145 Cr.P.C, it is settled law that any order

passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C by the learned Executive

Magistrate is amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section

397(1) Cr.P.C. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in the case

of Surinder Singh vs. State of Punjab1, had an occasion to deal

with the similar issue. While relying on the Full Bench Judgment

of High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the case of Brij Lal

Chakoo etc. v. Abdul Ahad Nishati and others2 wherein it is

held that an order passed under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C cannot be

said to be merely an interlocutory order and a revision against the

said order was not barred under the provisions of Cr.P.C, the

Punjab and Haryana High Court also ultimately held as follows:

"In view of the forgoing discussion, it is abundantly clear that while a revision against an order passed under Section 145(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure is legally maintainable and is not

(1996) 113 PLR 203

1980 Crl. L.J. 89

barred under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the same is not an interlocutory order and is in fact an order which touches the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to initiate the proceedings......"

Considering the aforesaid law laid down in the above

judgments, this Court, recently in Criminal Petition (SR) No.5836

of 2021, while answering the office objection, also held that there is

long line of judicial precedents, which make the legal position clear

that revision lies against an order passed under Section 145

Cr.P.C.

Therefore, when there is a specific remedy available to the

writ petitioner by way of preferring revision, the writ petitioner

cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India or even the inherent powers

of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable.