VIPIN GUPTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Misc. Petition has been filed by the accused petitioners challenging the order of cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate on 4th April, 2006. Precisely speaking, the prayer made by the petitioners is as under : "hence, prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow this petition and be further pleased to quash and set aside impugned order dated 4-4-2006 passed by learned additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, jaipur District, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 92/2006. "

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has, at the outset, submitted that the order of taking cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate on 4th April, 2006 is a final order which is revisable. Further, he has submitted that there is no dispute about this proposition. However, he has advanced his arguments that the petitioners can choose their forum and instead of filing a revision petition before the appropriate court, they can approach the High Court under its inherent powers as envisaged under Sec. 482, Cr. P. C. In this light, he has also submitted that the alternative forum of revision would not bar the petitioners from approaching this Court and the said alternative remedy would not be applicable here in the instant case. However, he has submitted that the inherent powers of the High court are special in nature which are to be exercised in case of there being abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. This argument has been further advanced by the counsel for the petitioners that in view of the opening words of Section 482, Cr. P. C. the powers of the High Court cannot be circumscribed and bound down. He has also submitted that if the matter is to be decided by the revisional Court, it would amount to recalling/reviewing the order of admission. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the cases in; (i)Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad sinha; AIR 1992 SC 1815 : (1992 Cri LJ 2916); (ii) M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special judicial Magistrate, AIR 1998 SC 128 : (1998 cri LJ 1); (iii) Ashok Chaturvedi v. Shitul H. Chanchani, AIR 1998 SC 2796 : (1996 Cri lj 4091); (iv) Suresh v. Mahadevappa shivappa Danannava, (2005) 3 SCC 670 : (AIR 2005 SC 1047); (v) Ram Biraji Devi v. Umesh Kumar Singh, (2006) 6 SCC 669 : (2006 Cri LJ 2782; (vi) Central Bureau of investigation v. State of Gujarat, (2007) 6 scc 156 : (AIR 2007 SC 2522); (vii) B. Suresh Yadav v. Sharifa Bee, (2007) 13 SCC 107 : (2008 Cri LJ 431 ).

(3.) OH the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant respondent No. 2 has contended that in view of the fact that against the impugned order of cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate, which has been challenged in this Misc. Petition, revision before the appropriate Court lies in the matter and this Court should not interfere in the same while exercising powers under section 482, Cr. P. C. In support of his submissions, he relies upon the judgment of a division Bench of this Court in Sessions judge Sawai Madhopur v. Dashrath Singh, rlw 1996 (3) (Raj) 613, wherein while answering a reference under Section 495 (2) Cr. P. C. it was held that an order of cognizance is a final order in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in catena of judgments which have been referred therein and that appropriate revisional Court should hear the matter. Therefore, the learned Division Bench had ordered as under :