BHOJ RAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. the petitioner has challenged the order passed by learned AddI. Sessions Judge, Deeg, dated 5.4.1991 upholding the other of the learned Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Deeg, dated 6.2.1990 in Criminal Case No. 216/88 taking cognizance of offence against the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts leading to this petition are that Rajendra Prasad, respondent No. 2, lodged a report on 11/5/1988 at the Police Station, Nagar alleging certain allegations against four persons which constituted offences under Sections 323, 324, 452 and 279 I.P.C. The police after investigation of the case filed charge-sheet against three accused, namely, Ashok Kumar, Brijesh and Pradeep Kumar and submitted the Final Report against the petitioner, Bhoj Raj Singh. The complainant filed a private complaint against him on which statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr. P.C. were recorded and thereafter issued process against the accused for offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and directed to amalgamate the private complaint with the charge-sheet already submitted against the three, purporting to have exercised powers under Section 210 (2) Cr. P.C. Accused filed a revision which has dismissed, hence this petition.

(3.) A preliminary objection was raised that in view of the bar contemplated under Section 397 (3) Cr. P.C. the petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. cannot be filed which virtually amounts to second revision. It was submitted that once remedy is exhausted, this Court should not entertain the revision petition. Reliance in this connection was placed on the decision reported in Dharam Pal and Others v. Smt.Rameshwari. Time was granted by me to the learned Counsel for the petitioner to study the preliminary objection. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Virendra Bandhu, submitted that there is no bar for this Court to entertain an application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. His submission is that inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. do not stand repelled when the revisional powers under Section 397 Cr. P.C. do not stand repelled when the revisional powers under Section 397 Cr. P.C. overlap. It is submitted that their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Raj Kapoor & Ors. v. State, have held that nothing in the Code, not even Section 397 can affect the amplitude of the inherent power preserved in so many terms by the language of Section 482. Even so, when a specific provision is made easy, resort to inherent power is not considered except under compelling circumstances. Not that there is absence of jurisdiction but that inherent power should not invade areas set part for specific power under the same Code. There is no total ban on the exercise of inherent power where abuse of the process of the Court or other extra-ordinary situation excites the Courts jurisdiction. The limitation is self-restraint, nothing more. The policy of the Law is clear that interlocutory orders, pure and simple, should not be taken up to the High court resulting in unnecessary litigation and delay. At the other extreme, final orders are clearly capable of being considered in exercise of inherent power, if glaring injustice stares the Court in the face. In between is a tertium quid, as for example, where it is more than a purely interlocutory order and less than a final disposal. In such case the inherent power can be exercised.