SOM NATH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Som Nath has filed the present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., for setting aside the order (Annexure P1) dated 8th October, 1996 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, who refused to summon respondent No. 2 as accused in case FIR No. 1 dated 5th January, 1995, Police Station Industrial Area, Ludhiana, for offence under Sections 307/323/324/148/149, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) BEFORE I proceed further I may state that respondent No. 2 Shri Baljit Rai alias Guljit Rai was found innocent during the course of investigation and he was not challaned. A preliminary objection was taken by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 that the petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., was not maintainable as the impugned order was subject to revision. Concurring with the objection raised by Shri J.S. Mann, Advocate, I am of the view that once an application under Section 319, Cr.P.C., has been rejected by the trial Court, it does not remain an interlocutory order as it adjudicates the controversy finally. Such an order is subject to revision, which was not filed. When an alternative remedy is available, the provisions under Section 482, Cr.P.C. cannot and should not be involved until or unless some exceptional ground is made out.

(3.) TREATING this petition as a revision against the impugned order, this Court has to see whether there is a material irregularity or patent illegality which has been committed by the learned trial Court in dismissing the application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. So far as the law is concerned, it is well settled that the revisional Court can only interfere in the impugned order when there is a glaring and inherent irregularity or patent illegality in the impugned order.