ANIL D AMBANI Vs. SANTOSH TYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused petitioners have already played an innings in respect of order dated July 15, 1995, of the learned Special Magistrate (Economic Offences) Jaipur, by filing S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 872 of 1995 invoking the provisions under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'the Cr. P. C.'). This court, vide order dated April 24, 1997, treated the said miscellaneous petition asrevision under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and forwarded it for' disposal to the court of the learned sessions judge, Jaipur District who transferred the case to the court of the special judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases Jaipur (for short 'the special judge').

(2.) THE learned special judge vide his order dated August 23, 1997, dis -. missed the revision petition. The petitioners have now, in the second innings of the proceedings invoked the provisions of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code again calling in question the order dated July 15, 1995, of the learned Special Magistrate (Economic Offences) Jaipur, along with the order dated August 23, 1993, of the learned special judge.

(3.) ON the other hand, the contention of Mr. Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners is that in view of the principle laid down in the maxim ex debito justitiae, i.e., in accordance with the requirements of justice, the prohibition under Section 397(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code would not apply. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has a different parameter and is a provision independent of Section 397(3). Section 482 regulates the inherent powers of the court to pass orders necessary in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. Reliance was placed on Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate [1997] 8 JT 705 (SC) ; P. R. Neelkanthan v. State of Rajasthan [1986] Crl LJ 1811 ; Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [1996] 87 Comp Cas 849 ; [1996] 5 SCC 591 ; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, AIR 1983 SC 67 and Krishnan v. Krishnaveni, AIR 1997 SC 987. Mr. Alok Sharma, learned counsel further contended that on the merits the complaint is wholly devoid of force and the offences alleged are not made out. The complaint is not maintainable at the behest of the complainant who is not a shareholder and the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.