C482/404/2020
2022 Latest Caselaw 2826 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                        COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  C482 No. 404 of 2020
                                  Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocate, for the applicants.

Mr. T.C. Agarwal, Deputy Advocate General, assisted by Mrs. Lata Negi, Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. G.C. Lakhchaura, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

The present C482 Application has been preferred by the applicants by putting a challenge to the Revisional Court's judgment dated 20th February, 2020, as it was rendered by the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Kashipur, District

of 2019, Prashant Kumar Verma Vs. Mukesh Verma and others, whereby, the Revisional Court, while exercising its power under Section 390 of the Cr.P.C., has set aside the order dated 12th March, 2019, which was passed by the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Misc. Application No. 153 of 2019, Prashant Kumar Verma Vs. Mukesh Verma and others, whereby, the order dated 12th March, 2019, as it was passed on the application under Sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Cr.P.C., has been set aside, and the matter has been remitted back by the Revisional Court to the Magistrate concerned to re-decide the application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C., afresh after hearing the parties concerned.

The exercise of inherent powers as contemplated under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is only available to be resorted to, when on the face of the order, it could lead to a rational and legal inference that the act complained of in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C., if permitted to be persisted will amount to be an abuse.

The exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been rather refrained to be exercised by the High Courts in exercise of its inherent powers, by appreciating or re-appreciating the evidence and its reliability, as to whether, it can be brought within the ambit of Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. or not, particularly, in a situation where, the Revisional Court has remitted the matter and the lis is yet to be decided on its own merit. There would not have been any apparent abuse of process by the Court, which could necessitate the interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is to be exercised sparingly and it has not to be resorted to like a remedy of an appeal or revision to re-scrutinize the validity of the revisional order by the constitutional courts.

Since the lis pertaining to Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. is yet to be decided on merits, after hearing the parties, I think that this is not a fit case in which the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Consequently, the 482 Application lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) Dated 07.09.2022 Shiv