PRAMILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When this application was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the order dated 10.7.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P.Case no.2118 of 2008 whereby a petition for discharge filed under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected, an objection was taken by the office over the maintainability of this application, as according to the office, a revision would lie against the impugned order.

(2.) Over the maintainability of the matter, heard Mr.Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that it is true that it has been well settled principle that an inherent power will come into play only when there is no provision in the Code for redressal of the grievance of the aggrieved party and that if the order assailed is purely of an interlocutory character, it can be corrected in exercise of the revisional power of the court and in that event, the High Court would refrain to interfere with the order in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But at the same time, it has also been held that none of the provisions of the Code prohibits or expressly bars invoking power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the High Court. Particularly for securing ends of justice, interference of the High Court is absolutely necessary. In this regard it was further submitted that there has been absolutely no credence against the petitioners at the stage of Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, still the prayer for discharge has been rejected and thereby order impugned is patently illegal. In that event, there would be no bar for the High Court to examine the legality of the order in exercise of its inherent power.