Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1587 (RAJ)

Amar Chand v. State of Raj.

2013-09-10

ATUL KUMAR JAIN

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon'ble JAIN, J.—This criminal misc. petition was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 28.5.2013 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur District in Criminal Case No.172/2011. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has framed the charges against accused-petitioner Amar Chand under Section 379 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC. It is settled law that an order by which charges are framed is revisable and it is almost settled practice of the courts that in matters when the impugned order can be challenged before the Court of revision then in such matters, inherent powers should not be exercised under Section 482, Cr.P.C. by the High Court. Following rulings may be referred in support of my view: (1) Mohit @ Sonu vs. State of U.P., 2013 Cr.L.R. (SC) 798. (2) Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 C 47 (3) Sanjay Bhandari vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Cr. Misc. Pet. No. 289/2006, decided by the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur on 5.2.2009 = 2009(2) RLW 1460 (4) P.I. Industries Limited vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Cr. Misc. Pet. No. 41/2008 decided by the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur on 5.2.2009. 2. Looking to the opposite view expressed in Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 2 SCC 370 , the matter was referred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the Larger Bench in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 3314/2009, Prabhu Chawla vs. State of Rajasthan, on 5.7.2013 on the question that if the matter is revisable then whether powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. should be exercised by the courts or not. Till the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court comes, this Court is bound to follow the ruling in Mohit @ Sonu case (supra) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 3. The accused-petitioner aggrieved by the impugned order by which charges are framed against him, has a special provision under the Code for redressal of his grievance by way of filing revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and so he cannot invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. because the order by which the charges are framed against him, is a final order and the revision can very well be maintained against such order. 4. 4. Thus, the appropriate remedy available to the accused-petitioner is to approach the revisional Court (which is the Court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur) in the present matter under Section 397, Cr.P.C., if he so advised and in that even the period consumed in the disposal of this petition shall not come in the way for the purpose of limitation. 5. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur on 27.9.2013 at 10.00 a.m. The criminal misc. petition is disposed of accordingly. The stay petition also stands disposed accordingly. A copy of this order be sent to both the courts below immediately.