KAILASH SAHU Vs. BASANTA KUMARI DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed seeking relief against revisional order passed against the petitioner u/ S. 397, Cr. P.C. The opposite party No. 1 filed a petition u/S. 125, Cr. P.C. claiming maintenance from the petitioner and while the matter stood adjourned to 7-12-1984 for delivery of judgment, the petitioner filed a petition on 4-12-1984 before the Magistrate to summon the Investigating Officer in G. R. Case No. 1580/ 77 to prove the FIR lodged by the opposite party No. 1 against the petitioner. Such move of the petitioner having been rejected, he moved in revision the Sessions Judge, Puri who did not entertain the same holding it to be a revision against an interlocutory order. Having so failed, the petitioner has come before this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petition, to say the least, is misconceived. It has been rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the order of the Magistrate refusing to summon the witness was at best an interlocutory order against which no revision lay. Since a second revision was not maintainable the petitioner has purported to file this application. Though it cannot be said uniformly that in no event a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for quashing a decision of a subordinate criminal court, yet it cannot be gainsaid that such a procedure is extraordinary and would be available to be exercised only in extreme and rare cases. If in fact any abuse of jurisdiction in the proceeding has become manifest, the same is available to be corrected by exercise of inherent power of this Court u/ S. 482, Cr. P.C. Hence in view of availability of such forum, ordinarily the power to issue prerogative writs is not to be exercised to correct the very same defects. That apart it is also not shown that in the case at hand any such abuse of process of law has taken place. The FIR lodged by Opp. party No. 1 could have been proved in the case otherwise also. The petitioner could have summoned the FIR and could have put the same to the Opp. Party No. 1. After all an FIR is admissible in evidence only for the purpose of corroboration and contradiction of the informant. If the FIR was not forthcoming through such process, the certified copy could have been obtained and utilised for the purpose. S. 311, Cr. P.C. is a provision which empowers the court to examine a person as court witness if the court feels the absolute necessity of examination of such witness as being essential to the just decision of the case. That is not the case here.

(3.) In that view of the matter, it must be held that this application has no merit and, hence is dismissed with cost of Rs. 500/-.