Petitioner filed a writ under Article 227 seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 128 Cr.P.C. initiated by wife. Court held it has no original jurisdiction under Article 227 and dismissed application.
Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India 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.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.89 of 2017 (2) dt.23-01-2017 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.89 of 2017
====================================================== Rajeev Kumar Gupta .... .... Petitioner/s Versus Uma Kumari .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sheel Bhadra Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER
This application under Article 227 of the Constitution
has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated under Section 128 Cr.P.C. by the wife-respondent which has been registered as Misc. Case No.312 of 2014 which is pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger.
The learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that after notice, the husband-petitioner has already appeared in the miscellaneous case and has filed reply to the application under Section 128 Cr.P.C. He has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India direct before the High Court for quashing the entire criminal proceeding.
It may be mentioned here that the said proceeding has been initiated for enforcement of the recovery of permanent
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.89 of 2017 (2) dt.23-01-2017 2
alimony of Rs.1,25,000/- passed by the court in Misc. Case No.116 of 2014.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, there is no question of quashing the proceeding arises. Moreover, no order of the Principal Judge, Family Court is under challenge in this miscellaneous case.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 329 has held that the High Court never exercises original jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, all the questions raised by the petitioner in this civil miscellaneous application are all disputed questions of fact and that cannot be decided in this civil miscellaneous application for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceeding initiated under Section 128 Cr.P.C. which is in the nature of execution.
Thus, this civil miscellaneous application is dismissed.
(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J)
Saurabh/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise original jurisdiction under Article 227 to quash criminal proceedings initiated under Section 128 Cr.P.C. pending in a litigation court?
Whether disputed questions of fact in execution proceedings can be adjudicated in a writ under Article 227?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar PatilRelied on¶12
Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 329
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajeev Kumar Gupta
Uma Kumari
Mungeshwar Sahoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
