DR SATVIR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DR . Satvir Gupta through Criminal Misc. Petition No. 381 -M of 1985 sought quashing of a case FIR No. 90 dated 14th June, 1984 registered against him under Sections 457/380/427/34, Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Kotwali, Faridabad and the proceedings taken thereunder in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Vide my order dated April 12, 1985, I quashed the proceedings pending against Dr. Satvir Gupta and made the following observations in my order : - "The present proceedings appear to have been initiated against the petitioner at the behest of Brig. Sushil Nath who is the husband of the complainant. From all this it is established that the case against the petitioner is nothing but a fabrication. In this view of the matter, the proceedings in question which are the outcome of a malice of the land -lady and her husband against the petitioner are clearly an abuse of the process of Court and cannot be sustained." Mrs. Pushpa Nath and her husband Major General Sushil Nath the applicants have filed this petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, praying therein that the aforesaid remarks be expunged.

(2.) MR . V.K. Bali, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the aforesaid remarks were made in the absence of the applicants and the matter should have been decided without passing those remarks which are likely to damage the career of the applicant Major General Sushil Nath had the applicants been given an opportunity, they might have been able to explain their conduct. Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for Dr. Satvir Gupta, has opposed this petition. He has submitted that the judgment pased in Cr. Misc. No. 381 -M of 1985 cannot be reviewed and to buttress his argument he has cited a Supreme Court decision in State of Orissa v. Ram Chander AIR 1979 SC 87. This authority is distinguishable and the ratio thereof is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In similar circumstances, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Nain AIR 1964 SC 703 held that the High Court can in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction expunge remarks made by it or by a lower Court if it be necessary to do so to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice; the jurisdiction is, however, of an exceptional nature and has to be exercised in exceptional cases only. Considering all the facts and circumstances, I feel that the present case is one of those exceptional cases where the inherent jurisdiction of the Court should be exercised and the remarks referred to above against the applicants should be expunged. I accordingly allow this petition and direct that the aforesaid remarks stand expunged from the order of this Court dated April 12, 1985.