Skip to content


Changdeo Kisan Jadhav Vs. Chindya JaIn and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1976CriLJ1293
AppellantChangdeo Kisan Jadhav
RespondentChindya JaIn and ors.
Excerpt:
- - with a view to stop this abuse the parliament has enacted sections 392(2) and 397(3) as well as 399(3). 4. it is not proper to construe section 482, which confers inherent jurisdiction on this court, in such a way as to nullify the legislative bar to the entertainment of revision applications against the interlocutory orders in criminal proceedings......legislative bar to the entertainment of revision applications against the interlocutory orders in criminal proceedings. the inherent powers under section 482 are conferred on this court by the code not to defeat the mandatory provisions contained elsewhere in the code; but 'to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order' under the code 'or to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.5. in the present case, all that has happened is that the sub-inspector who was called upon to report under section 145 has reported that, in spite of the decree of injunction obtained by the original owner of the land in dispute, chandrabhagabai, the opponent was continuously cultivating the land and was in possession of the land. relying on.....
Judgment:

Vaidya J.

1. The above Application, filed by the Second Party, in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Vaijapur, District Aurangabad, must be rejected because it is directed against an interlocutory order, passed under that section, on March 13, 1975.

2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that although, under Section 397(2), the powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to interlocutory orders, this Court can in exercise of its powers under Section 482 interfere with an interlocutory order. This contention cannot be accepted.

3. Section 397(2) was enacted by the Parliament because when revisions in respect of interlocutory orders are filed in High Court and admitted, the proceedings in lower Courts are in most cases stayed; and this holds up the matters until disposal of the revision petitions. The facility of having a wrong or an unjust order set aside, which was available to the litigants before the new Criminal Procedure Code, according to the practices followed by the various High Courts, was so extensively abused that it has been a major factor in delaying disposal of cases not only by months but by years during which some of the witnesses die or lose interest in the cases. Sometimes the prosecution loses its keenness. With a view to stop this abuse the Parliament has enacted Sections 392(2) and 397(3) as well as 399(3).

4. It is not proper to construe Section 482, which confers inherent jurisdiction on this Court, in such a way as to nullify the legislative bar to the entertainment of revision applications against the interlocutory orders in criminal proceedings. The inherent powers under Section 482 are conferred on this Court by the Code not to defeat the mandatory provisions contained elsewhere in the Code; but 'to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order' under the Code 'or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

5. In the present case, all that has happened is that the Sub-Inspector who was called upon to report under Section 145 has reported that, in spite of the decree of injunction obtained by the original owner of the land in dispute, Chandrabhagabai, the opponent was continuously cultivating the land and was in possession of the land. Relying on that report an interlocutory order under Section 145 was passed. It is prima facie a finding of fact; and it does not involve any question of abuse of any process of Court or miscarriage of justice, which alone will justify interference by this Court. A reference in this connection may be made to the Judgment of this Court in Criminal Application No. 1131 of 1974 decided on September 15, 1975 (Bom), where a similar view was taken.

6. In the result the criminal application filed by the petitioner is rejected on the ground that the impugned order is interlocutory; and this Court will not ordinarily interfere with such an order in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Criminal P. C.

7. Stay granted by this Court is vacated.

8. Record and Proceedings shall be sent down immediately.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //