SOHAN LAL Vs. INDIRA DEVI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C' for short), the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 28.09.2016, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Mandi, in an application filed by the present petitioner for extension of time for furnishing personal bond as well as surety bonds. The impugned order reads as under.

(2.) It is a matter of record that despite indulgence having been shown by the Court below by way of impugned order, the petitioner did not deposit 30% amount, as was ordered to be deposited vide order 30.08.2016, on or before 25.10.2016. Not only this, rather than approaching the Court which had granted extension in favour of the petitioner to deposit the amount, he filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C assailing the order so passed by the learned Court below granting extension of time in favour of the petitioner and that too on an application so filed by him.

(3.) In my considered view, this application is not only misconceived but is also abuse of process of law. Apparently, there is no manifest error committed by learned Court below while passing order dated 28.09.2016. In fact, this order was passed by learned Court below on an application which was filed by the present petitioner for extension of time for furnishing personal bond as well as surety bond in terms of order dated 30.08.2016. In case, the petitioner was not in a position to comply with the direction which was passed by learned Court below, then the proper course for the petitioner was to have had approached the said Court praying for either modification of the order or for extension of the time to comply with order dated 30.08.2016. However, rather than approaching the Court below, the petitioner has filed the present petition. Therefore, as there is no perversity or illegality with the impugned order and further as there is no jurisdictional error committed by learned Court below while passing order dated 28.09.2016, this petition is dismissed being mis-conceived.