TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 petition dismissed for lack of extraordinary circumstances to interfere with FIR registration order</h1> Delhi HC dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to set aside an order and directing police to register an FIR. The court held the petition ... Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking to sett aside of the impugned order - seeking direction to the SHO to register an FIR based on the complaint filed by the petitioners herein and initiate an investigation in the matter - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that there is no averment, categoric or otherwise in the present petition, to show that the present case is one such extra ordinary case which calls for interference by this Court under Section 482 of the CrPC. In fact, there is no denial of the said fact by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as according to him the present petition is also maintainable. This Court is unable to agree with the said contention. It is trite law that a Court while interpreting a provision of the Statute is bound to abide by what is expressed and contained therein without interfering or altering or carving out either a new meaning or something which is not manifest thereform. As per the facts of the present case, admittedly, when an appropriate and specific remedy of law under the (same) Statute being the CrPC is already available to the petitioners, this Court in view of the aforesaid conclusion and even otherwise as per the legal position finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court. This Court is unable to understand the reasons for interfering into the merits of the matter when it has already once opined in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present petition is prima facie not maintainable before this Court under the provisions of Section 482 of the CrPC. Petition dismissed. Issues:Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking setting aside of the impugned order and direction to register an FIR, maintainability of the petition under Section 482 CrPC, interpretation of the legal provisions under Section 482 CrPC, availability of alternate efficacious remedy under Section 397 CrPC, exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, criteria for invoking Section 482 CrPC, discretion of the High Court in exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC, pleading requirements for maintaining a petition under Section 482 CrPC, adherence to statutory remedies under CrPC, interference by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, imposition of cost on petitioners, compliance with the order.Analysis:The petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to set aside an order and direct the registration of an FIR. The court noted the objection raised by the State regarding the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 CrPC, citing the availability of an alternate efficacious remedy under Section 397 CrPC. The court referred to legal precedents to emphasize that the High Court's power under Section 482 CrPC is not circumscribed by other provisions and can be invoked sparingly in extraordinary circumstances. The court highlighted the distinction between the powers under Section 397 and Section 482 CrPC, emphasizing the need for caution and discretion in invoking the inherent powers of the High Court.The court examined the legal position and facts of the case and concluded that the petition was not maintainable under Section 482 CrPC. It emphasized that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should be sparingly exercised and only when justified to secure the ends of justice. The court found that the petition lacked averments to show extraordinary circumstances warranting High Court interference under Section 482 CrPC. The court emphasized the need for specific pleading requirements and adherence to statutory remedies under the CrPC.Despite the petitioners' arguments, the court maintained that the petition was not maintainable under Section 482 CrPC. The court rejected the plea for interference under Section 482 CrPC, citing lack of justification and adherence to legal principles. The court dismissed the petition, subject to the petitioners depositing a cost with the Delhi Police Welfare Society Fund due to police involvement. The court directed compliance and set a date for further proceedings. The judgment underscored the importance of statutory remedies, discretion in invoking inherent powers, and adherence to legal principles in maintaining petitions under Section 482 CrPC.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
