RAJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The two petitioners Rajeev Kumar and Bibhav Kumar are the charge-sheeted accused of case Crime No. 55 of 2007 (Case No. 5859 of 2007), under Sections 353, 504 and 506, I.P.C., police station Sector 20, N.O.I.D.A., District Gautam Budh Nagar vide Annexure-9 to this writ petition. C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar has taken cognizance of the offence on 5.7.2007 and registered Case No. 5859 of 2007, State v. Rajeev Kumar and others and have summoned the accused persons vide his order dated 5.7.2007 fixing 5.8.2007 for their appearance. Hence, this writ petition by the petitioner with the prayer to issue writ order or direction in nature of certiorari quashing of all proceedings emanating from F.I.R. of Crime No. 55 of 2007 (Case No. 5859 of 2007) for the aforesaid offences vide Annexure-9 to this writ petition. The ancillary prayer is to direct respondent authorities to compensate the petitioners for loss of their life and personal liberty on account of their illegal detention on 25.1.2007 to be determined and fixed by this Court as demanded in paragraph 35 of the writ petition, which has been quantified as Rs. 3,00,000 (Rs. three lac).

(2.) SRI Ravi Kiran Jain, learned senior counsel argued the petition on behalf of the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. in opposition.

(3.) SRI Ravi Kiran Jain, learned senior counsel vehemently argued that Section 482, Cr. P.C. is not an efficacious remedy as under Section 482, Cr. P.C., High Court cannot grant compensation for an illegal detention, which compensation has been claimed by him as the secondary relief in this writ petition, the primary relief being quashing of charge-sheet and the proceedings. SRI Jain contended that in view of the law laid down in Ms. Pepsi Foods Limited and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, AIR 1998 SC 128, alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in exercise of extraordinary constitutional power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. SRI Jain contended that writ power has been conferred on the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. He submitted that nomenclature is not material and therefore, the instant writ petition should not be thrown out on the ground of alternative remedy. He further submitted that for the reasons quoted above Section 482, Cr. P.C. is not the efficacious remedy and therefore, the writ petition be entertained.