In S.B. Criminal Misc.(Pet.) No. 3871/2023, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan held that an interlocutory order under Section 151 CrPC refusing collection of evidence, which is not revisible under Section 397 CrPC, cannot be challenged under Section 482 CrPC.
Petition under Section 482 CrPC dismissed; inherent jurisdiction denied.
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.
[2023:RJ-JD:31865]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3871/2023
Pukhraj S/o Gheesa Ram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Hariyadhana, Teh. Bilara, Dist. Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijendra For Respondent(s) : Mr. SK Bhati, PP Mr. Rajendra Singh Chouhan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT Judgment
27/09/2023
01;kph }kjk ;g ;kfpdk vUrxZr /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds rgr fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ,oa U;kf;d eftLVªsV] ukxkSj] jkt- ds QkStnkjh ewy izdj.k la[;k 954@2012] eaxyjke cuke iq[kjkt esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 29-04-2023 ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh xbZ gSA
03;ksX; vf/koDrk ;kph dh vksj ls ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;k fd bl ekeys esa tks fy[kki<+h Fkh] mlds fcuk U;k;ksfpr fu.kZ; gksuk laHko ugha gSA bl vk/kkj ij nLrkost dks fjdkWMZ ij fy, tkus dk vkns'k fn;k tk,A
04;ksX; yksd vfHk;kstd o ;ksX; vf/koDrk v;kph us rdZ fn;k fd bl ekeys esa rFkkdfFkr fy[kki<+h muds ikl miyC/k ugha gS] blfy, nLrkost is'k fd;k tkuk laHko ugha gSA vr% ;kfpdk [kkfjt fd, tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA
05ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar Sethuramanvs Rajamanickam, (2009)5 SCC 153 ds eqrkfcd /kkjk 91 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds rgr
[2023:RJ-JD:31865]
[CRLMP-3871/2023]
(2 of 4)
izkFkZuk i= fuLrkj.k ds vkns'k Interlocutory vkns'k gksus ls mlds fo:) fuxjkuh ugha dh tk ldrhA
06ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar ds eqrkfcd /kkjk 91 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds izkFkZuk&i= ij fn;k x;k vkns'k Interlocutory vkns'k gksus dk fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;s tkus dh lwjr esa vc bl iz'u ij ;g fopkj fd;k tkuk gS fd D;k ,sls vkns'k dks /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds rgr pqukSrh nh tk ldrh gS vkSj ;fn nh tk ldrh gS] rks /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- dh ;kfpdk fdl voLFkk esa U;k;ky; fopkj dj vkns'k esa gLr{ksi dj ldrk gSA bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre }kjk Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI, (2017) 14 SCC 809, ds ekeys esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds Amar Nath And others Vs. state of Haryana And others AIR 1977 SC 2185 o Madhu Limaye Vs. The State Of Maharashtra AIR 1978 SC 47 ds vk/kkj ij iSjk la[;k 29 o 30 esa fuEukuqlkj foospu fd;k x;k gS%&
“10. ... In such a situation, what is the harmonious way out? In our opinion, a happy solution of this problem would be to say that the bar provided in sub-section (2) of Section 397 operates only in exercise of the revisional power of the High Court, meaning thereby that the High Court will have no power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order. Then in accordance with one of the other principles enunciated above, the inherent power will come into play, there being no other provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. But then, if the order assailed is
(3 of 4)
[2023:RJ-JD:31865]
[CRLMP-3871/2023]
purely of an interlocutory character which could be corrected in exercise of the revisional power of the High Court under the 1898 Code, the High Court will refuse to exercise its inherent power. But in case the impugned order clearly brings about a situation which is an abuse of the process of the Court or for the purpose of securing the ends of justice interference by the High Court is absolutely necessary, then nothing contained in Section 397(2) can limit or affect the exercise of the inherent power by the High Court. But such cases would be few and far between. The High Court must exercise the inherent power very sparingly.”
07mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar esa izfrikfnr fl)kar ds ifjizs{; esa ;g fof/kd fLFkfr Li"V gS fd lkekU;r;k% tc /kkjk 397¼2½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds eqrkfcd fjfotu Interlocutory vkns'k dh ugha gks ldrh] ml voLFkk esa /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds rgr Hkh dk;Zokgh ugha dh tk ldrhA ijarq bldk viokn ;g fn;k x;k gS fd U;k;ky; abuse of process of court ;k ends of justice ds fy, viokfnr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa Interlocutory vkns'k esa Hkh gLr{ksi dj ldrk gSA ,sls ekeyksa esa Hkh mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fdQk;r ls /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds rgr vkns'k fd;k tkuk pkfg,A
08mDr fof/kd fLFkfr dks en~nsutj j[krs gq, gLrxr ekeys esa fopkj fd;k x;kA gLrxr vkns'k fjfotu ;ksX; vkns'k ugha gSA /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds rgr bl vkns'k esa gLr{ksi fd;k tk, vFkok ugha] ml ij fopkj fd;k tk jgk gSA
09gLrxr ekeys es a v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 29-04-2023 esa Li"V :i ls vafdr gS fd eqLrxhl }kjk Lo;a ds dCts esa orZeku esa nLrkost vfLrRo esa ugha gksus ls is'k fd;k tkuk laHko ugha gksuk crk;k gSA nLrkost dkQh ryk'k djus ds ckotwn Hkh ugha feyuk crk;k gSA bl laca/k esa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk Li"V :i ls vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd fy[kk&i<+h is'k ugha djus ds laca/k esa mi/kkj.kk o mlds fu.kZ; ij izHkko vafre fu.kZ; ds le; gh r; fd;k tk ldsxkA eqLrxhl }kjk nLrkost Lo;a ds dCts esa miyC/k ugha gksuk crk, tkus ij gh bl ekeys esa izkFkZuk i= eq[; :i ls [kkfjt fd;k x;k gSA
10vkt Hkh U;k;ky; esa v;kph ds vf/koDrk }kjk v;kph ds dCts esa rFkkdfFkr nLrkost ugha gksuk crk;k gSA ,sls gkyr esa tc nLrkost miyC/k ugha gksuk crk;k gS] rc /kkjk 91 naM izfØ;k lafgrk ds rgr nLrkost is'k djus dk vkns'k fn;k tkuk fof/klEer ugha gSA /kkjk 482 naM izfØ;k lafgrk ds rgr bl
(4 of 4)
[2023:RJ-JD:31865]
[CRLMP-3871/2023]
ekeys esa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 29-04-2023 esa gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk fof/klEer izrhr ugha gksrk gSA ;kph dh ;kfpdk [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA 11 - vr% ;kph dh vksj ls izLrqr ;kfpdk vUrxZr /kkjk 482 naM izfØ;k lafgrk [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA rn~uqlkj LFkxu izkFkZuk i= dk Hkh fuLrkj.k fd;k tkrk gSA
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J
615-GauravG/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to challenge an interlocutory order passed under Section 151 CrPC when Section 397 CrPC bars revision.
Whether the inherent powers of the High Court extend to interlocutory decisions which are purely of regulatory nature and do not affect the merits of the case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
SethuramanFollowed¶17
(2009)5 SCC 153 · Who else cites this
Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBIFollowed¶21
(2017) 14 SCC 809 · Who else cites this
Amar Nath And others Vs. state of HaryanaFollowed¶22
AIR 1977 SC 2185 · Who else cites this
Madhu Limaye Vs. The State Of MaharashtraExplained¶23
(1978) 4 SCC 47 · Who else cites this
AIR 1977 SC 218 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Pukhraj S/o Gheesa Ram
State Of Rajasthan
Mangla Ram S/o Moti Ram
YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
