Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> High Court of Delhi Power under Section 482 of CrPC cannot be exercised where the allegations are required to be proved in Court of law MANU/DE/1138/2020 - (01 Jun 2020) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Ravi Kapur & Anr. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The Respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Section 14 and 14 (a) read with Para 76 (D) and Para 78 (3) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (EPF scheme). The Trial Court took cognizance for offence and summoned the Petitioner. The petitioner feeling aggrieved invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions and questioned the correctness, legality and proprietary of the said order. But his criminal revision petition was dismissed vide impugned order which is now challenged by the Petitioner, invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). 
The Petitioner submitted that, inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC is still available and for continuous superintendence, the Court would be justified in interfering with the order which has led to the miscarriage of justice. A procedural issue has arisen, as to whether the Petitioner having availed of the remedy of revision should be allowed to take recourse to Section 482 of CrPC as a substitute for virtually initiating a second revisional challenge or scrutiny which is clearly barred under Section 397 (3) of CrPC. 
Section 397 (3) of CrPC provides that, if an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them. 
In Rajinder Prasad Vs. Bashir, the Supreme Court referring to its earlier decision in Krishnan Vs. Krishnaveni, held that, though the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC is very wide, yet the same must be exercised sparingly and cautiously particularly in a case where the Petitioner is shown to have already invoked the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC. Only in cases where the High Court finds that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order was not correct, the High Court may, in its discretion, prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC. It was further held, "Ordinarily, when revision has been barred by Section 397(3) of the CrPC, 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 CrPC since it may amount to circumvention of provisions of Section 397(3) or Section 397(2) of the CrPC. 
All the contentions raised by the Petitioner in the present petition cannot be decided under the proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC as this court under Section 482 of the CrPC shall not upset the concurrent findings of the two courts below in the absence of any perversity and the petitioners cannot be allowed to initiate a second revision petition in the garb of Section 482 of CrPC. 
The defence as raised by the petitioner in the petition requires evidence, which cannot be appreciated, evaluated or adjudged in the proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC and the same can only be proved in the Court of law. Reliance can be placed upon "State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Yogendra Singh Jadon & Anr"., decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on January 31, 2020 in which it has been held that "the power under Section 482 of CrPC cannot be exercised where the allegations are required to be proved in Court of law". 
Therefore, present Court finds that no special case has been made out for this Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. There is no miscarriage of justice or illegality in the approach adopted by the two courts below. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Revisional challenge, Bar, Legality</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>