G AROKIYA MARIE Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions are filed seeking a direction to the Station House Officer concerned to register the case as the allegation made in the respective complaint reflects commission of cognizable offences.

(2.) Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) Mr. A. Saravanan, referring to the authority pronounced by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State Of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2007(8) Supreme 226) and also the authority in Aleque Padamsee and others v. Union Of India and others (CDJ 2007 SC 802), would contend that the alternative remedy available under Sections 154(3), 190 and 200 read with Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure will have to be resorted to by the aggrieved party on refusal to register the complaint by the Station House Officer. It is his further submission that when there is effective remedy available under the statute, the Court cannot invoke the inherent jurisdiction conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and grant the relief sought for.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners in various petitions would contend that Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been incorporated only to do complete justice. The judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court referred to by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) do not totally bar the aggrieved litigants to approach the High Court invoking the provision under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Referring deeply into those two verdicts pronounced by the Honourable Supreme Court, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the Honourable Supreme Court has just referred to the methodology to be adopted in case the Station House Officer refuses to register the complaint in spite of the fact that the complaint reflects commission of cognizable offence. It may be a case where the aggrieved party may not have the right to invoke Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution of India, but, they have got a right to invoke the inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of complete justice. In one of those two judgments, the Honourable Supreme Court has observed that ordinarily the aggrieved party shall not invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They would further contend that the alternative methodology found under Sections 154(3), 190 and 200 read with 156(3) does not pave way for quick remedy. Further, the time consuming process adumbrated therein will wipe out the valuable evidence and thereby cause injustice to the aggrieved party. Therefore, the inherent jurisdiction will have to be invoked by the High Court whenever a party knocks at the doors of the High Court seeking justice.