ASHISH BAGGA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these three petitions are arising out of the order dated 30.11.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur in the Complaint No. 1669/2006, whereby he took cognizance against the petitioners under Section 228A I.P.C. and summoned them through bailable warrants and the legal question involved in it, is also similar, therefore, they are being disposed-of by this common order.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) While drawing the attention of this Court towards the judgment of Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 17.12.2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 2055 of 2007, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the scope of Sections 397 and 482 Cr.P.C. was widely discussed in the said judgment on account of the divergent views of the Bombay High Court in V.K. Jain v. Pratap V. Padode, reported in 2005(30) Mh.L.J. 778 and Vishwanaath Ramkrishna Patil v. Ashok Murlidhar Sonar, and submitted that the law laid down in V.K. Jain's case (supra) is not the good law in which it has been held-that wttere alternative remedy is available under Section 397 Cr.P.C., petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Learned counsel submits on the basis of this judgment that this Court's view in Sanjay Bhandari v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2009(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 282 requires re-consideration. Learned counsel has strongly put his argument for review of Sanjay Bhandari's case (supra) by emphasising on various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which have been earlier discussed by this Court in Sanjay Bhandari's case (supra) including the case of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 551, Amarnath v. State of Haryana, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 137, Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 338 and Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2004) 13 SCC 324. In the alternative, he has submitted that if the Court is of the view that these petitions are not maintainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C., then the same be treated as revision petitions under Section 397 Cr.P.C., because only the nomenclature has been given in these petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.