Sanjeev Kumar Rai Chawdhary and others v State of Uttar Pradesh and another
Allahabad High Court
2 September 2013
Cr. No. 3838 of 2013
The Order of the Court was as follows :
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. By means of the instant application under Section 482ย Cr.P.C., the applicants have prayed for quashing of entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5729 of 2012 under Sections 323, 506 & 498-Aย I.P.C.ย and 3/4 of theย Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Kheri pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Lakhimpur Kheri.
3. By the said order, the applicants have been summoned to face trial.
4. Learned A.G.A. submits that the applicants have an alternative remedy for preferring criminal revision against the said order. The accused person had not challenged proceedings of aforesaid case before the revisional court and straightway approached this Court by moving an application under Section 482ย Cr.P.C.
5. Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Om Kumar Dhankar Vs. State of Haryana[2012 (11) SCC 252ย 2012 Indlaw SC 598] has held the revision against the summoning order is maintainable. reported in Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Vs. Kovvuri Satyanarayan Reddy reported in [(2011) 12 SCC 437ย 2011 Indlaw SC 680] has held as under:-
“It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482ย Cr.P.C.ย 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 Vs. State, 2000 Cr.L.J. 315 Delhiย 1999 Indlaw DEL 11251, and B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675ย 2003 Indlaw SC 230). 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.”
6. In a very recent judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Mohit alias Sonu and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in JT 2013 (9) SC 205ย 2013 Indlaw SC 384ย has held that when an order not interlocutory in nature can be assailed in High Court in revisional jurisdiction, it should be a bar invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. In other words, inherent powers of the Court can be exercised when there is no remedy provided in theย Code of Criminal Procedurefor redressal of the grievance. It is well settled that inherent powers of the Court can be exercised when there is no express provision in the code under which order impugned can be challenged. In the same judgment, Hon’ble the Apex Court has further held that when there is a specific remedy provided by way of appeal or revision, the inherent powers under Section 482ย Cr.P.C.ย or Section 151ย C.P.C.ย cannot and should not be resorted to.
7. Since the applicants have an alternative remedy to file revision against the said order, hence, the application is hereby dismissed on the ground of availability of the alternative remedy.
Application dismissed