Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1222 (PNJ)

Santa Singh v. State of Punjab

2012-09-17

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.: - Feeling aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has approached this court by way of instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fazilka-respondent no.3 to send the file alongwith all the necessary documents pertaining to FIR No.27 dated 15.2.2012 under Sections 15,61 of N.D.P.S. Act, registered at Police Station Sadar,Distt.Ferozepur, to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot-respondent no.4, for fair and impartial enquiry into the matter. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, fairly conceded that after conclusion of the investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has already been presented to the learned court of competent jurisdiction. However, he vehemently contended that in compliance of the order dated 26.3.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by this court on the earlier petition filed by the petitioner, petitioner approached the Inspector General of Police (Crime),Punjab, Chandigarh, vide his self contained representation dated 27.6.2012 (Annexure P-6). Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-6) was marked by the Inspector General of Police, to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur vide No.1141 dated 27.6.2012, for further enquiry. 3. Referring to the averments taken in para 9 of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur, forwarded the representation (Annexure P-6) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot, vide No.13475/FR/PC dated 5.7.2012 for conducting the enquiry into the matter. The representation of the petitioner forwarded, as above, was received by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot-respondent no.4 vide letter No.10687/C dated 23.7.2012. However, respondent no.3 i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police, Fazilka, is sitting tight over the matter because of extraneous consideration and he is not forwarding the representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot-respondent no.4. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fazilka, be directed to send all the necessary documents to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot-respondent no.4. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his able assistance, have gone through the record of the case. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fazilka, be directed to send all the necessary documents to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot-respondent no.4. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his able assistance, have gone through the record of the case. Having given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that the present one is not a fit case for exercising the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I say so for more than one reasons, being recorded hereinafter. 5. Firstly, there is not even a passing reference of the order passed by this court on 26.3.2012 (Annexure P-5) in the representation allegedly submitted by the petitioner on 27.6.2012, vide Annexure P-6. Thus, prima facie, it seems that the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy, which was available to him in compliance of the order dated 26.3.2012 passed by this court in Crl.Misc.No.M- 8738 of 2012. 6. Secondly, as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fazilka-respondent no.3 is not complying with the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur respondent no.2, while not sending the relevant papers to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot-respondent no.4. If the allegation is accepted to be true, that one police officer is not complying with the orders of his senior police officer, I am afraid,whether the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can be invoked for this purpose. 7. Thirdly, the petitioner has not admittedly approached the Deputy Inspector General of Police-respondent no.2 or the Inspector General of Police (Crime),Punjab, before whom he moved his representation (Annexure P-6) complaining about the alleged non working attitude of respondent no.3. 8. So far as the scope of inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned, no doubt, it is wide enough, but simultaneously it is also true that the inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgement in State of Punjab Vs. 8. So far as the scope of inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned, no doubt, it is wide enough, but simultaneously it is also true that the inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgement in State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others etc., [2012(1) Law Herald (SC) 481 : 2012(1) Law Herald (P&H) 513 (SC)] : 2012(1) RCR (Crl.) 126, observed as under :- “32. The inherent power of the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is saved only where an order has been passed by the criminal court which is required to be set aside to secure the ends of justice or where the proceeding pending before a court, amounts to abuse of the process of court. Therefore, such powers can be exercised by the High Court in relation to a matter pending before a criminal court or where a power is exercised by the court under the Cr.P.C. Inherent powers cannot be exercised assuming that the statute conferred an unfettered and arbitrary jurisdiction, nor can the High Court act at its whim or caprice. The statutory power has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. (Vide : Kurukshetra University & Anr. V. State of Haryana and Anr., AIR 1977 SC 2229 : and State of W.B. & others V. Surjit Kumar Rana (2004) 4 SCC 129 . 33. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Cr.P.C. for the redressal of the grievance of the aggrieved party or where alternative remedy is available. Such powers cannot be exercised as against the express bar of the law and engrafted in any other provision of the Cr.P.C. Such powers can be exercised to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of court. However, such expressions do not confer unlimited/unfettered jurisdiction on the High Court as the “ends of justice” and “abuse of the process of the court” have to be dealt with in accordance with law including the procedural law and not otherwise. However, such expressions do not confer unlimited/unfettered jurisdiction on the High Court as the “ends of justice” and “abuse of the process of the court” have to be dealt with in accordance with law including the procedural law and not otherwise. Such powers can be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice as the courts have been conferred such inherent jurisdiction, in absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, or such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice as provided in the legal maxim “quando lex aliquid alique, concedit, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest”. However, the High Court has not been given nor does it possess any inherent power to make any order, which in the opinion of the court, could be in the interest of justice as the statutory provision is not intended to by-pass the procedure prescribed. (Vide Lalit Mohan Mondal & ors. V. Benoyendra Nath Chatterjee, AIR 1982 SC 785 , Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh V. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2006(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 675: 2006(1) Apex Criminal 224: AIR 2006 SC 915 : Central Bureau of Investigation V. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr., 2006(3) Apex Criminal 65 : AIR 2006 SC 2872 Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. V. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., [2007(4) Law Herald (SC) 3288] : 2007(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 548: 2007(5) R.A.J. 451: AIR 2008 SC 251 and Pankaj Kumar V. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [2008(6) Law Herald (SC) 4168] : 2008(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 890: 2008 (6) R.A.J. 293: AIR 2008 SC 3077 ). 9. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, this court is of the considered view that in the given fact situation of the present case, it is not a fit case for exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is also the settled principle of law that the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is to be exercised only in the three situations provided under Section 482 Cr.P.C., itself. None out of three situations is available in the present case. Therefore, no case for interference, has been made out. 10. Resultantly, the instant petition is ordered to be dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------