12 July 2023 8:30 AM GMT
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court while emphasising the wide amplitude of the High Court's inherent powers has clarified that filing a revision petition before a Sessions Court does not preclude the petitioner from invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). A bench of Justice M A Chowdhary made these clarifications...
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court while emphasising the wide amplitude of the High Court's inherent powers has clarified that filing a revision petition before a Sessions Court does not preclude the petitioner from invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C).
A bench of Justice M A Chowdhary made these clarifications while hearing a petition under Section 482 CrPC in terms of which the petitioner had challenged an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate granting maintenance to the respondents under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner had also filed a revision petition against this order, which was dismissed by the Principal Sessions Judge. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, arguing that the previous orders were illegal and had caused a miscarriage of justice.
Raising a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the petition the respondents contended that the petitioner was not entitled to approach the High Court after availing the remedy of revision before the Sessions Court, citing the bar imposed under Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C. They argued that the petitioner was attempting to circumvent this bar by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.
Justice Chowdhary, while addressing the maintainability of the petition, noted that while a subsequent revision petition cannot be filed under the guise of Section 482, the inherent powers of the High Court are not barred by the provisions of Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C.
“…This Court is not debarred from entertaining an application under Section 482 of the Code invoking the inherent jurisdiction for the limited purpose of looking at it as to whether there has been miscarriage of justice or that the ends of justice would be secured by interfering in the Order passed by the learned Magistrate”, the bench maintained.
In order to fortify the stand the bench found it worthwhile to record the following observations made by Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai [(2003):
“Even in cases where a second revision before the High Court after dismissal of the first one by the Court of Session is barred under Section 397(2) of the Code, the inherent power of the Court has been held to be available. The inherent power of the High Court is not conferred by statute but has merely been saved thereunder. It is, thus, difficult to conceive that the jurisdiction of the High Court would be held to be barred only because the revisional jurisdiction could also be availed of”.
Moving on to the merits of the case, Justice Chowdhary addressed the petitioner's contention that the lower courts had not followed the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha. The court observed that the lower courts had indeed considered the case in light of the directions given in the Rajnesh case regarding overlapping jurisdiction and maintenance claims under CrPC and Domestic Violence Act.
The bench further noted that the petitioner's argument regarding the non-disclosure of previous proceedings and orders by the respondents was incorrect, as the respondents had pleaded and disclosed the earlier maintenance order in their application.
The court further remarked that the petitioner had challenged every order passed by the lower courts without contesting the matter there and emphasized that the petitioner's frequent recourse to different courts and invoking multiple jurisdictions was unnecessary and contributed to the prolongation of the legal process.
In light of the said observations, the bench dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Bilal Ahmad Ganaie Vs Sweety Rashid & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 180
Counsel For Petitioner: Mr M. A. Qayoom, Advocate with Mr Mian Muzaffar, Advocate.
Counsel For Respondent: Mr Shafqat Nazir, Advocate with Mr Shabir Ahmad Bhat, Advocate.
Click Here To Read/Download Judgment