TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1595
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Brajesh Pandey, Ram Naresh Yadav, Ruchi Kohli and Milind Kumar, Advs. JUDGMENT S.K. Singh, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. First we take up appeals of Prabhu Chawla and Jagdish Upasane and Ors. as these two criminal appeals seek to assail a common order dated 02.04.2009 whereby the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed the petitions preferred by the Appellants Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity 'Code of Criminal Procedure'). High Court held the petitions to be not maintainable in view of judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Sanjay Bhandari v. State of Rajasthan 2009 (1) CrLR (Raj.) 282 (impugned in the other connected appeal) holding that availability of remedy Und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d back to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits within the scope of inherent powers available to the High Court Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. It would suffice to note that in both these appeals, the miscellaneous petitions before the High Court arose out of an order dated 30.11.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur in the complaint No. 1669 of 2006, whereby it took cognizance against the Appellants Under Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code and summoned them through bailable warrants to face further proceedings in the case. 5. Mr. P.K. Goswami learned senior advocate for the Appellants supported the view taken by this Court in the case Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. (supra). He pointed out ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vade areas set apart for specific power under the same Code. In Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra this Court has exhaustively and, if I may say so with great respect, correctly discussed and delineated the law beyond mistake. While it is true that Section 482 is pervasive it should not subvert legal interdicts written into the same Code, such, for instance, in Section 397(2). Apparent conflict may arise in some situations between the two provisions and a happy solution "would be to say that the bar provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 397 operates only in exercise of the revisional power of the High Court, meaning thereby that the High Court will have no power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order. Then in acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... exercise of inherent power, if glaring injustice stares the court in the face. In between is a tertium quid, as Untwalia, J. has pointed out as for example, where it is more than a purely interlocutory order and less than a final disposal. The present case falls under that category where the accused complain of harassment through the court's process. Can we state that in this third category the inherent power can be exercised? In the words of Untwalia, J.: (SCC p. 556, para 10) The answer is obvious that the bar will not operate to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and/or to secure the ends of justice. The label of the petition filed by an aggrieved party is immaterial. The High Court can examine the matter i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an be no total ban on the exercise of such wholesome jurisdiction where, in the words of Krishna Iyer, J. "abuse of the process of the Court or other extraordinary situation excites the court's jurisdiction. The limitation is self-restraint, nothing more." We venture to add a further reason in support. Since Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure is attracted against all orders other than interlocutory, a contrary view would limit the availability of inherent powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure only to petty interlocutory orders! A situation wholly unwarranted and undesirable. 7. As a sequel, we are constrained to hold that the Division Bench, particularly in paragraph 28, in the case of Mohit alias Sonu and Anr. (sup....