High Court Is Not Debarred From Entertaining Petition U/s. 482 CrPC Once Revision Petition Has Been Dismissed: J&K&L High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court, in a Petition challenging the impugned orders of the Judicial Magistrate and Principle Sessions Judge in a case relating to the grant of maintenance, noted that the High Courts have inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 to deliver justice to the parties.
Justice M. A. Chowdhary observed, “The High Court is not debarred from entertaining a Petition under Section 482 of the Code against the impugned Order passed by the learned Magistrate, if it finds that there has been miscarriage of justice or that the ends of justice would be secured by interfering in the Order passed by the learned trial Magistrate and that it would all depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case”.
In this case, the respondent filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in Pulwama. The CJM transferred the case to the court of the Judicial Magistrate (Special Mobile Magistrate) in Pulwama. The magistrate granted interim maintenance to the respondent, even though she had already been divorced by the Petitioner and was receiving monthly maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA). The Petitioner filed a revision petition in the court of the Sessions Judge, but the judge dismissed his petition. The Petitioner then filed in the High Court, challenging the orders contending that the orders are illegal, improper, and without jurisdiction and that they have caused a miscarriage of justice.
Advocate M. A. Qayoom appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Shafqat Nazir appeared for the Respondent.
The Court noted that the High Courts have inherent jurisdiction to entertain petitions under Section 482 CrPC, which cannot be superseded by provisions for revision laid down under Section 397 (3) of the Code. In this context, the Court held, “the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code, is of wide amplitude and it cannot be excluded by the provisions of revision contained under Section 397 (3) of the Code and that merely because the Revision Petition, in the instant case, has been rejected by the learned Revisional Court”.
Moreover, the Court emphasized that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts should be used sparingly and must be invoked sparingly to secure the ends of justice. The Court held, “the Petitioner, instead of filing Objections and contesting the matter there, preferred a Revision Petition before the Sessions Court at Pulwama and not even being contended with the Order of the Sessions Court, preferred this Petition under Section 482 of the Code, thereby invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, which is to be sparingly used”.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the impugned orders.
Cause Title: Bilal Ahmad Ganaie v. Sweety Rashid & Ors
