Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 420 (CHH)

Parmanand Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

2014-11-25

SANJAY K.AGRAWAL

body2014
ORDER : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. By the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr. P.C.") the petitioner herein has approached this Court complaining that the certified copy of the complaint case and other related documents have not been issued and supplied to him by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharamjaigarh in connection with Crime No. 108/2014. The petitioner has alleged that a complaint case was filed against him and three others by Jag Singh Rathiya and Sukh Singh under Section 200 of Cr. P.C. before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharamjaigarh in which he made an application for grant of certified copies of the complaint case and other related documents but the application has not been accepted and the copies have not been supplied to him. 2. Mr. Sarparaj Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in order to challenge the order passed against the petitioner in a complaint case filed by Jag Singh Rathiya and another, certified copy of the complaint case and other related documents would be necessary and as such denial of certified copy to the petitioner would prevent him from questioning the legality and validity of the order passed therein and, therefore, a direction be issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. for grant of the certified copies. Learned counsel, in support of his arguments, relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in Court On Its Own Motion Vs. State, decided on 06-12-2010. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. Section 482 of Cr. P.C. reads as under: "482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.--Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." 5. From a plain and careful reading of Section 482 of Cr. P.C., it is clear that power under Section 482 of the Code may be exercised to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice. 6. The Supreme Court, in State of W.B. and Others Vs. P.C., it is clear that power under Section 482 of the Code may be exercised to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice. 6. The Supreme Court, in State of W.B. and Others Vs. Sujit Kumar Rana (2004) 4 SCC 129 , held that the inherent power under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. can be exercised 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 the Court amounts to abuse of process of the Court and held as under: "33. From a bare perusal of the aforementioned provision, it would be evident that the inherent power of the High Court is saved only in a case 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, it is therefore, evident that power under Section482 of the Code can be exercised by the High Court in relation to a matter pending before a court; which in the context of the Code of Criminal Procedure would mean "a criminal court" or whence a power is exercised by the court under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Once it is held that the criminal court had no power to deal with the property seized under the Act, the question of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of tie Code of Criminal Procedure would not arise." 7. Considering the scope of Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Devine Retreat Centre Vs. State of Kerala and others (2008) 3 SCC 542 , held that the power to issue writs and pass appropriate orders under Section 482 of the Code though both conferred upon the High Court yet they undoubtedly operate in different fields and relevant para thereof reads as under: "56. In our view, the whole of public law remedies available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the constituent power to issue writs in the nature of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition and quo warranto are neither echoed nor transplanted into Section 482. In our view, the whole of public law remedies available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the constituent power to issue writs in the nature of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition and quo warranto are neither echoed nor transplanted into Section 482. May be both the powers to issue writs and pass appropriate orders under Section 482 of the Code are conferred upon the High Court but they undoubtedly operate in different fields". 8. If the facts of the present case are examined in the light of the principles laid down, it is quite vivid that neither judicial order passed by the Criminal Court has been challenged in this proceeding nor he has shown any copy of the order which is said to have been passed against him in the complaint case. Thus, following the principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in absence of any proceeding/judicial order, this Court in exercise of power under Section482 of Cr. P.C. cannot issue any direction to the jurisdictional criminal Court to provide certified copy to the petitioner. In view of the above, the petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.