Dismissed

Diwakar Malik v. Jyoti Chaudhary

Uttarakhand HC25 Jul 2013C482/715/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge dismissed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a summoning order in a private complaint for offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, holding that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 397 Cr.P.C. as per Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioner at liberty to avail alternative remedy before Revisional Court.

Diwakar Malik Vs Jyoti Chaudhary — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Uttarakhand HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Criminal Misc. Application No. 715 of 2013

¶3

Diwakar Malik. …….Petitioner.

¶4

Versus

¶5

Jyoti Chaudhary. …......…. Respondent.

¶6

Present: Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶7

Hon’ble Alok Singh, J (Oral).

¶8

Present petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging order dated 03.05.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Narendra Nagar, Tehri Garhwal whereby present petitioner was summoned on a private complaint under Section 504, 506 IPC.

¶9

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Om Kumar Dhankar Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2012 (11) SCC 252 in paragraphs 9 and 10 has held under:

¶10

“9. Insofar as the first question is concerned, it is concluded by a later decision of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande and Others Vs. Uttam reported in (1999) 3 SCC 134 . In Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande case this Court considered earlier decisions of this Court in the cases of Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1977) 4 SCC 551, V.C. Shukla Vs. State reported in 1980 Supp. SCC 92, Amar Nath Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1977) 4 SCC 137 and K.M. Mathew Vs. State of Kerala reported in (1992) 1 SCC 217 and it was held as under :-

¶11

¶12

“6... This being the position of law, it would not be appropriate to hold that an order directing issuance of process is purely interlocutory and therefore, the bar under sub-section (2) of Section 397 would apply. On the other hand, it must be held to be intermediate or quasi-final and, therefore, the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 could be exercised against the same....”

¶13

10. In view of the above legal position, we hold, as it must be, that revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. was available to the respondent No. 2 in challenging the order of the Magistrate directing issuance of summons. The first question is answered against the appellant accordingly.”

¶14

In view of the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioner has efficacious alternative legal remedy to file revision before Sessions Judge challenging the summoning order. No doubt remedy available under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is akin to the revisional jurisdiction but this Court should be slow in entertaining the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the summoning order, if alternative remedy is available to the petitioner.

¶15

In view of the above, I am not inclined to entertain this petition. Petition is dismissed. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to avail the alternative remedy before the Revisional Court.

¶16

SKS

Diwakar Malik v. Jyoti Chaudhary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Diwakar Malik v. Jyoti Chaudhary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basant Singh Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Sham Dass Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Sobhit Gupta Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Kulvender Singh Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Sanjay Sehgal Vs Charan Singh Kalura

Aadarsh Joshi and Another Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another