MANGI LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed for issue of a direction to the 2nd respondent, viz. III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad to re-record the evidence of the writ petitioner in C.C. No. 69/85 on the ground that the 2nd respondent made many mistakes in recording his evidence given as P.W. 3 in the said case.

(2.) The facts averred in the affidavit disclose that the writ petitioner filed a petition under S.311, Cr. P.C., before the 2nd respondent for re-recording his evidence. Since that petition was dismissed, he filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 192 of 1987 before the 1st Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge after a thorough scrutiny of the entire material found that there were only two mistakes, that too very minor, in recording his evidence and therefore directed recalling the writ petitioner and having those two mistakes, viz., the mistake of Jaya Trading Company to be corrected as J.R. Trading Company and the other one 'Khandwa' should be 'Khandwa", corrected accordingly. In respect of other mistakes pointed out, the learned Sessions Judge was not satisfied and therefore rejected the prayer in respect of the balance remaining. Therefore, the petitinoner sought to challenge the same and filed Crl. M.P/241/88 before this Court. On 29th Feb. 88 the matter came up before me and after hearing both parties the petition was dismissed on merits. Having exhausted his remedy at different levels, the petitioner now seeks to challenge the order already become final by resorting to Art.226 of the Constitution. Office therefore has taken an objection as regards the maintainability of the writ petition.

(3.) The Supreme Court in Shankar Ramchandra v. Krishnaji Dattatraya, AIR 1970 SC 1 had the occasion to consider a case of similar nature wherein the remedies open under civil law (instead of under criminal law as is the instant case) were exhausted and then attempt was made to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that a writ petition 0ughl not to have been entertained by the High Court when the respondent had already chosen the remedy of S.115, C.P.C. If there are two modes of invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court and one of those modes has been chosen and exhausted it would not be proper and sound exercise of discretion to grant relief in the other set of proceedings in respect of the same order of the Subordinate Court. The refusal to grant relief in such circumstances would be in consequence with the anxiety of the Court to prevent abuse of process as also to respect and accord finality of its own decisions. This decision of the Supreme Court applies on all fours to the case on hand since the order of the III Metropolitan Magistrate passed in a petition under S.311, Cr. P.C., was carried in revision and thereafter even the jurisdiction of this Court under S.482, Cr. P.C., was also invoked and exhausted. Therefore, entertaining this writ petition amounts to permitting abuse of the process of law.