NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

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

MANU/DE/0807/2020

Criminal

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.

Tags : POWERS   COMPLAINT   QUASHING OF  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved