TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Section 482 CrPC Allows High Court to Intervene Despite Alternative Remedies to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice</h1> <h3>Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Faridkot Versus Durga Ji Traders and Ors.</h3> Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Faridkot Versus Durga Ji Traders and Ors. - tmi ISSUES: Whether the High Court was justified in declining to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to set aside the dismissal in default of a private criminal complaint.Whether dismissal of a private criminal complaint in default for non-appearance of the complainant, who had been exempted from personal appearance, can be sustained.Whether availability of an alternative remedy against an order of acquittal or dismissal in default is a bar to exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The High Court erred in declining to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code on the sole ground of availability of an alternative remedy, ignoring the serious nature of the charges and the technical nature of the dismissal in default.The order of exemption from personal appearance continues to be in force until revoked or recalled; therefore, dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the complainant should have sought a fresh exemption was 'a hyper technical ground' and 'defies any logic.'Availability of an alternative remedy of filing an appeal is 'not an absolute bar' to entertaining a petition under Section 482 of the Code, especially when the inherent jurisdiction is invoked 'to secure the ends of justice.' RATIONALE: The Court applied the legal framework under Section 482 of the Code, which confers inherent powers on the High Court 'to give effect to an order under the Code,' 'to prevent abuse of the process of Court,' and 'to otherwise secure the ends of justice.'The Court relied on precedent emphasizing that the power under Section 482 is 'very wide but it is not unlimited,' and must be exercised 'sparingly, carefully and cautiously' to do 'real and substantial justice.'The Court rejected the High Court's narrow approach that the dismissal in default amounts to acquittal and that a specific statutory remedy being available bars inherent jurisdiction, holding that such a view leads to miscarriage of justice.The Court underscored that procedural lacunae or hyper-technical grounds should not defeat substantive justice, particularly where the complainant had been exempted from personal appearance and the dismissal was on a technicality.The decision represents a reaffirmation of the principle that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 is a remedy of 'extraordinary powers' to be invoked in 'extraordinary cases' to prevent injustice, even if alternative remedies exist.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
