Parmanand vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.

Heard on the question of admission.

Invoking the powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner who is an injured and the first informant in Crime No. 226/2004 registered at Police Station, Akaltara, District Janjgir, Champa (C.G.) has filed this petition for issuance of the following directions :-

"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon''ble Court should give a suitable direction to the learned Lower Court to consider the charges at the time of framing looking to the merit of the case in regard with Crime No. 226/2004 in the interest of justice."

It is stated in the petition that the incident occurred on 17-6-2004 at about 8.30 hours when respondent Nos. 3 to 5 started abusing the petitioner, they also assaulted the petitioner as well as Aruna Bai wife of the petitioner and Mohan son of the petitioner. The report of the said incident was lodged by the petitioner on the same day at about 9.30 hours and the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 and 323 of the IPC was registered against respondent Nos. 3 to 5. The copy of the First Information Report has been filed as Annexure A-1. It is further stated that after lodging the aforesaid report, the injured persons were sent to the hospital and they were medically examined. After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed in which an offence u/s 325 of IPC was also added. A copy of the final report has also been filed as Annexure A-2. The petitioner stated in Para 5 of the petition that he received some fracture. He has also filed the photographs as Annexure A-3 to show the seriousness of the offence. It is also stated by the petitioner that a counter report was also lodged by Sukhnandan, his real brother and a counter case under Sections 294, 506 and 323/34 of the IPC has been registered against the petitioner and the other persons. A copy of the First Information Report of the counter case has also been filed as Annexure A-4.

The petitioner has specifically mentioned vide Para 7 of the petition that the charges have not been framed so far and he is aggrieved by the mala fide action of respondent No. 2 who has neither conducted the investigation properly nor has filed the charge-sheet under the appropriate sections of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner further reiterates vide ground No. 2 of the petition that according to him an offence u/s 307, IPC would have been added in this case instead of offence u/s 325 of the IPC. In the light of above facts the petitioner has prayed for the aforesaid relief and has also prayed to issue necessary directions to the Lower Court to consider and frame the charges looking to the merits of the case.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the charge-sheet has not been filed under the appropriate sections and the complainant party has received serious injuries, therefore, it is just possible that the charges may not be framed under appropriate sections and the Trial Court may also commit a mistake in this regard. Therefore, a direction is required to be issued by this Hon''ble Court even at the pre-charges stage so that the Trial Court frames the charges in accordance with law.

On the other hand learned State Counsel opposes the prayer and submits that the inherent powers of the High Court are not to be exercised in such circumstances even on the apprehension of a party, that a particular Court of law will not act in accordance with law and on the basis of apprehension alone no command is required in this regard.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also considered the facts and circumstances. In order to dispose of the case in hand it would be just and proper for this Court to refer to the provisions of Section 482, Cr.PC. Section 482, Cr.PC reads as under :-

"482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

On a bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it transpires that there are 3 conditions in which the inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised. These conditions are :-

(i) to give effect to any order under the Code,

(ii) to prevent the abuse of process of the Court, and

(iii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

The above conditions show that there can be no fixed rule which may govern the High Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction. The powers can be exercised only for the purposes of the aforesaid conditions and in each case in hand the Court has to determine as to whether any such circumstance arises in which the power is to be exercised. This is more so because no legislative enactment dealing with the procedure can provide for all the cases that may possibly arise. It is for this reason the inherent powers of the High Court are saved by giving the provisions u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In the light of the above provisions of the Code, it is to be determined by this Court as to whether it would be just and proper to issue such direction to the subordinate Court to secure the ends of justice as is prayed by the petitioner.

In the opinion of this Court, no directions are required to be issued at this stage as the petitioner could not make out a case under any of the conditions referred to above. Mere suspicion in the mind of a party that the subordinate Court would not act in accordance with law does not give him power to invoke inherent jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 482, Cr.PC for a direction to the subordinate Court to do a thing in a particular manner. When the legislature has laid down a provision for doing a particular thing in a particular manner by a Court of competent jurisdiction then unless the said thing has been done by the Court, it can not be assumed as the same would not be done in accordance with law. Any such assumption or presumption in the mind of the petitioner is not only baseless but the same is premature and undesirable. This Court is not inclined to issue any such directions as prayed by the petitioner invoking the jurisdiction u/s 482, Cr.PC as none of the conditions referred to above are made out in this case to issue the same.

The petition is misconceived. The same deserves to be and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No order as to the cost.