ABDUL WAHAB Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.M.G. Asghar learned Counsel for the applicants, Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri R.K. Sharma, for the opposite parties No. 2 to 7 and learned A.G.A. for the State and have been taken through the record. The instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the complainant against the order dated 25.3.2010 passed the learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 3, Ghaziabad passed in S.T. No. 1973 of 2009 (State v. Zahid) under section 498A/304B, IPC read with section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station Massoori District Ghaziabad whereby the application moved by the complainant-applicant under section 319 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 7 raised preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. and has contended that the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the rejection of the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. by the Trial Court cannot be entertained as the applicant has surpassed the appropriate remedy of revision.

(3.) In rebuttal of the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 to 7, learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in re Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others, 1983 AllCriC 50 wherein the provision in section 482 Cr.P.C. has been dealt with in extenso holding that section 482 Cr.P.C. confers a separate and independent power on the High Court alone to pass order ex debito justitiae in case where grave and substantial injustice has been done or where the process of the Court has been serious abused. It is not merely a revisional power meant to be exercised against the orders passed by the subordinate Courts. The scope, ambit and range of section 482 Cr.P.C. is quite different from the powers conferred under the provision of section 397 Cr.P.C. therefore, the inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. shall be available to a person despite he has remedy of revision before the Sessions Judge or High Court. The jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only to prevent abuse of process of Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. In the instant case impugned order clearly denotes a situation which is an abuse of process of the Court, therefore, for the purpose of securing ends of justice it will not be a bar to exercise inherent powers of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C.