Tel. HC: Constitutional Validity of Section 38(2) of RP Act and Rule 5.7.1 of ECI’s Handbook Upheld  ||  MP HC: Power Exercised u/s 319 of CrPC Must Come Before Acquittal Order in Case of Joint Result  ||  Del. HC: Order of CIC Directing CBDT to Give Information Regarding Ram Janmabhoomi Trust Set Aside  ||  Ker HC: In Non-Performance of Agreement, Buyer to Get Charge Over Property For Paying Purchase Price  ||  Rajasthan High Court: Reinstate Ayurvedic Doctors Who Haven’t Attained 62 Years of Age  ||  Rajasthan High Court: Accrual Time For Taxing Income to Be Postponed Till Dispute’s Adjudication  ||  Supreme Court: Distributor Not An Agent But An Independent Contractor  ||  Ker. HC: No Member of Hindu Public Can Claim to Perform Services That Only Archakas Can Perform  ||  Bom HC: Emp. to Ensure That Minor Mistakes Due to Candidate’s Disability Shouldn’t Lead to Job Loss  ||  SC Criticises Centre For Not Specifying Range of Rates For Treatment in Pvt. Hospitals & Clinics    

Unnati Bhardwaj and Ors. Vs. K.P. Sharma - (High Court of Delhi) (13 Mar 2020)

Power under Section 482 of the CrPC cannot be exercised for upsetting concurrent findings of two courts below in absence of any perversity



The Petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) with the prayers to allow the present petition and quash the impugned order passed by the Additional Session Judge as well as the summoning order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate. Further, prayer is to quash the complaint, pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate.

The Respondent herein had instituted a criminal complaint under Section 200 of CrPC for commission of offence punishable under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 120-B IPC against the Petitioners herein. Since the Respondent was given a clean chit in the GC enquiry by his department, so he preferred the complaint before the Magistrate in which the Petitioners have been summoned as accused.

All the contentions raised by the Petitioners 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 Petitioners 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 the CrPC cannot be exercised where the allegations are required to be proved in Court of law". Therefore, this 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 nor any such has been pointed by the Petitioners. The prayers are untenable in law. Hence, this Court does not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the Respondent. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved