Avatar Singh Chhabra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 15246 MP

                                                            1
                            IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT INDORE
                                                      BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                            ON THE 15 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
                                          MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8216 of 2020

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    AVATAR SINGH CHHABRA S/O SUNDAR SINGH
                                 CHHABRA, AGED 76 YEARS, D-35, BRIJNAYANI
                                 COLONY, KHANDWA ROAD, LIMBODI, INDORE
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    SATNAM AVATAR SINGH CHHABRA W/O AVATAR
                                 SINGH CHHABRA, AGED 70 YEARS, D-35,
                                 BRIJNAYANI   COLONY,  KHANDWA     ROAD,
                                 LIMBODI, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    AMARJEET A. CHHABRA S/O AVATAR SINGH
                                 CHHABRA, AGED 40 YEARS, D-35, BRIJNAYANI
                                 COLONY, KHANDWA ROAD, LIMBODI, INDORE
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....APPLICANTS
                           (BY SHRI SARIT SANYAL - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
                                 BHAWARKUA DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    HIMMAT S. MAHAJAN S/O SAHEB RAO
                                 MAHAJAN, AGED 40 YEARS, 40, JAIN COLONY,
                                 SHIRPUR DISTRICT DHULE PRESENT ADDRESS
                                 C/O PUNJAB GOODS TRANSPORT, MAIN ROAD
                                 SHIRPUR       DHULE,       MAHARASHTRA
                                 (MAHARASHTRA)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                           ( SMT. VARSHA SINGH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
                           RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE)
                           (SHRI TANUJ TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2.)

                                 This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 15-09-2023
18:57:12
                                                                2
                           following:
                                                                ORDER

This petition has been filed by applicants under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 16.12.2019 passed by 12th ASJ Indore in Criminal appeal No. 775/2016 and with a prayer to pass appropriate order of conviction against respondent no. 2 and compensation be granted to applicants for misappropriation /loss done by respondent no. 2.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of FIR lodged by applicants/complaint Avatar Singh, against respondent no. 2/Himmat S.Mahajan charge sheet has been filed before the trial court.Trial court after completion of trial and evaluating the evidence available on record by order

dated 26.4.2016 acquitted respondent no. 2/accused for charge under section 406 of IPC. Respondent no. 1/State has filed an appeal before the court of 12th ASJ Indore but vide judgment dated 16.12.2019 same has been dismissed by affirming the order passed by trial court in respect of acquittal of respondent no. 2. Being aggrieved by both orders, the applicants/complainants have filed this petition before this court.

3. Counsel for applicants contended that this court has inherent power and wide jurisdiction to pass orders to secure the ends of justice, therefore, this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable against the impugned orders passed by trial court and first appellate court.

4. Per contra counsel for State opposes the prayer by stating that this court has no jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. to hear this petition against the judgment of acquittal passed by both the courts below.

5. Counsel for respondent no. 2 opposes the prayer.

6. Both the parties heard at length and perused the record. Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 15-09-2023 18:57:12

7. The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Vs. Kovuri Satyanarayan Reddy reported in (2012) 12 SCC 437 has held as under:

10) It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. It cannot be used if it is inconsistent with specific provisions provided under the Code.- (vide Kavita v. State and B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana & Anr.). If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers under this section, specially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy.

8. The Hon'ble Apex court in case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ravishankar Shrivastava reported in AIR 2006 SC 2872 held as under:

"While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. "

9. On the basis of aforesaid judgment and forging analysis it is quite clear that this court cannot entertain this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. merely because both the courts have decided the matter in correct manner.

10. This court has no jurisdiction to interfere with any judgment or order Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 15-09-2023 18:57:12

of acquittal passed by trial court in exercise of its ordinary jurisdiction. In the instant case alternative remedy is available to applicants to challenged the orders passed by the courts below before the competent court. Under section 482 of Cr.P.C. this court cannot function as an appellate court or revisional court. This court is not under an obligation to go into the matter to examine either the correctness and genuineness of impugned judgments. Therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the impugned judgments passed by the trial court and first appellate court.

11. This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by applicants is hereby dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE BDJ

Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 15-09-2023 18:57:12