Single Judge of the Kerala High Court dismissed the petition to quash an order dismissing an application for discharge, holding that Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked when the aggrieved party has a regular remedy under Section 397 CrPC.
The petition to quash the order dismissing the discharge application was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 28TH ASWINA, 1942
Crl.MC.No.37 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 2073/2012 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, KARUNAGAPPALLY
PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED SIDDIQUE, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KHADAR, CHIRAKANDATHIL HOUSE, NEAR VATTACHAL PADI JUNCTION, MADAPALLY VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI. A. T. ANIL KUMAR SMT. V. SHYLAJA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
*ADDL. SAJEEV KUMAR, 28 YEARS, R2 S/O. GOPALAPILLA, PADINJARAY THARA, ELAVAKKATT, KUTHIRAPANTHI P. O, VADAKKUMMURI, THAZHAVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
*** IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 20.01.2016 IN CRL.MP. NO.409 OF 2016 IN CRL. M.C NO.37 OF 2016.**
SRI. E. C BINEESH, P.P
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.37 OF 2016
2
ORDER
A discharge application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate under Annexure E order. The same is sought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The order admittedly is amenable to a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Without exhausting the regular remedy under Section 397 Cr.P.C, the petitioner came up to quash the same under Section 482 Cr.P.C. When there is provision to redress the grievance of petitioner, it is not permissible to exhaust the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Further, a consideration based on merits and demerits of an order passed by a court cannot be conducted under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The legal position was settled by this Court in Keynote Capitals Limited (M/s) Mumbai and another v. State of Kerala and another
[2020 (5) KHC 434] . Paragraph 5 of the said judgment is extracted below for reference:
“5. The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not a remedy or solution for redressing all kinds of grievances.
Crl.MC.No.37 OF 2016
3
But it can be exercised sparingly so as to prevent abuse of the process of court or for securing ends of justice. While exercising inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not permissible to have a detailed enquiry or appreciation with respect to admissibility or sustainability of evidence collected or statement recorded during the course of investigation in the matter of a final report submitted or to go into each and every details of a complaint or FIR registered and availability of any valid defence to the accused. The existence of valid grounds of defence may not be by itself sufficient to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It can be sparingly exercised only to prevent abuse of the process of court or to secure the ends of justice. The expression 'to secure the ends of justice' should not be misunderstood with any valid defence available, though wide jurisdiction given within the compass of Section 482 Cr.P.C. The second limb of Section 482 Cr.P.C.- 'to secure the ends of justice', can be exercised only when there is no provision for redressing the grievance of the aggrieved, which would otherwise result in injustice or illegality. The salutary principle behind it is to avoid a situation not to leave any aggrieved person without any remedy, when there is patent illegality or injustice, which cannot be cured or redressed under any existing provisions of law. On the other hand, the expression 'to prevent abuse of the process of court' stands for to prevent any attempt made to abuse the authority of a court. The first limb of Section 482 Cr.P.C. - to prevent abuse of the process of court - is also resting on the principle of promoting justice and to prevent injustice. An attempt to oppress or harass without any
Crl.MC.No.37 OF 2016
4
lawful cause with any oblique motive or illegitimate aim in the hands of a vindictive litigant would attract the first limb of Section 482 Cr.P.C. When there is no provision for redressing the grievance, the second limb- 'to secure the ends of justice' engrafted under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would come into play. It can be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, but cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegation in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not or whether the evidence in question are reliable or not.”
While exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this court cannot sit in revision against an order passed on merits. Hence Crl.M.C. fails, dismissed.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE
SPR
Crl.MC.No.37 OF 2016
5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT. ANNEXURE B THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR. ANNEXURE C THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET. ANNEXURE D THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE APPLICATION. ANNEXURE E THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN ANNEXURE D APPLICATION.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash an order dismissing an application for discharge without first exhausting the regular remedy of revision under
Whether the High Court can sit in revision against an order passed on merits by a subordinate court while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Keynote Capitals LimitedExplained¶19
Keynote Capitals Limited (M/s) Mumbai and another v. State of Kerala and another [2020 (5) KHC 434]
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Muhammed Siddique
State of Kerala Represented by the Public Prosecutor
Addl. Sajeev Kumar
P. Somarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
