Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 626 (HP)

Tara Devi v. State of H. P.

2017-05-31

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. In the instant petition, the petitioner had initially omitted to in the relief clause, incorporate an apposite relief that the order of the Magistrate concerned, whereby he remitted the case for trial to the Panchayat concerned, being quashed and set aside. For want of the aforesaid relief being initially incorporated in the petition, the relief asked therein that directions be pronounced upon the SHO of Police Station, Brow, District Kullu, H.P. qua his after completing the relevant investigations, his submitting a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., in the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction, is unamenable for its being afforded, especially, when this Court would hence proceed to infringe the order of the Magistrate concerned, whereby, he remitted the case for trial to the Panchayat concerned, also, when it has not been initially asked to be quashed and set aside. Subsequently, the learned counsel for the petitioner for curing the aforesaid infirmity of his not incorporating in the petition the aforesaid relevant relief, has instituted an application for an amendment therein being permitted to be effected, comprised in this Court permitting him, to pray for quashing and setting aside of the order of the Magistrate concerned. The application claiming the aforesaid relief, has been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents concerned. Since no provision exists in the Criminal Procedure Code qua permission for incorporating by way of an amendment in the petition, a relief not initially prayed therein also when the inherent powers vested in this Court under the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. are residuary powers available for being exercised by this Court, only when no other remedy is available under the law vis-à-vis the aggrieved concerned, thereupon, with the petitioner holding an alternative remedy, comprised in his assailing the impugned order recorded by the Magistrate concerned, by hers preferring a criminal revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge concerned. Consequently, the instant petition besides Cr.MP No. 613 of 2016 are both dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner, to file an appropriate criminal revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge concerned, to enable her to assail the order recorded by the Magistrate concerned. Consequently, the instant petition besides Cr.MP No. 613 of 2016 are both dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner, to file an appropriate criminal revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge concerned, to enable her to assail the order recorded by the Magistrate concerned. All relevant pleas with respect to the criminal revision petition, falling within the domain of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law, by the learned Sessions Judge concerned. Petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending applications if any, also stand disposed of.