M/S Janta Land Promoters Ltd And Another v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh

CRM-M-42234 of 2014 (O&M) and other connected matters IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-42234 of 2014 (O&M)Date of Decision: 19.10.2015 M/s Janta Land Promoters Ltd and another .....Petitioners Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh .....Respondent 2. CRM-M-42235 of 2014(O&M) Paramjit Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh .....Respondent 3.CRM-M-42236 of 2014(O&M) M/s Janta Land Promoters Ltd and another .....Petitioners Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh 4. .....RespondentCRM-M-42237 of 2014(O&M) Kulwant Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh .....RespondentAMIT KUMAR 5.CRM-M-42250 of 2014(O&M) Manjit Kaur .....Petitioner Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK Present : Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate and Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Advocate for the respondent. **** 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. These five identical petitions bearing CRM-M-42234 to42237 and CRM-M-42250 of 2014 are being decided together videthis common order, as all these petitions are against the samerespondent and based on similar set of facts. However, for thefacility of reference, facts are being culled out from CRM-M-42234 of2014. Petitioners, by way of instant petition under Section 482 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure ( 'Cr.P.C.' for short), seek quashingof the identical complaints filed by the respondent under theProvisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and the identical impugnedsummoning orders alongwith consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Notice of motion was issued. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondentraised a preliminary objection about maintainability of these petitions.He submits that it is a matter of record that petitioners have notavailed their equally efficacious alternative remedy of revision beforethe learned Sessions Judge. He further submits that when theremedy of revision is very much provided under the Cr.P.C. itself,petitioners ought to have availed their alternative remedy, at the firstinstance, instead of filing these petitions. He seeks dismissal of thesepetitions. Having been confronted with the abovesaid undisputedfact situation, learned senior counsel for the petitioners tried to justifyfiling of these petitions without availing the remedy of revision againstthe impugned summoning order, at the first instance. On the issue ofmaintainability of these petitions, learned senior counsel for thepetitioners submits that petitioners are entitled to invoke the inherentjurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, because of thepeculiar fact situation obtaining in these cases. In support of hiscontentions, learned senior counsel places reliance on a judgment ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd andothers Vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2009 (2) SCC 370. Healso submits that preliminary objection raised by learned counsel forthe respondent is liable to be over-ruled and all these petitionsdeserve to be allowed. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties atconsiderable length, after careful perusal of record of the cases andgiving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, thisCourt is of the considered opinion that petitioners are liable to berelegated to their equally efficacious alternative remedy of revisionagainst the impugned summoning order, at the first instance, whichhas been provided under the Cr.P.C. itself. To say so, reasons aremore than one, which are being recorded hereinafter. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties atconsiderable length, after careful perusal of record of the cases andgiving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, thisCourt is of the considered opinion that petitioners are liable to berelegated to their equally efficacious alternative remedy of revisionagainst the impugned summoning order, at the first instance, whichhas been provided under the Cr.P.C. itself. To say so, reasons aremore than one, which are being recorded hereinafter. It is a matter of record that remedy of revision against theimpugned summoning orders is provided under the Cr.P.C. It is alsonot in dispute that petitioners have not availed their equallyefficacious alternative remedy of revision. Under thesecircumstances, the important question of law that arises forconsideration of this Court is, whether one should be permitted toinvoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482Cr.P.C., without availing his equally efficacious alternative remedy ofrevision against the impugned summoning order, at the first instance. After giving anxious consideration to the issue and goingthrough the long catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtas well as different High Courts of the country, including this Court,this Court is of the view that answer to the question posedhereinabove is and has to be an emphatic no. It is so said because,as a general rule, a litigant cannot be permitted to bypass the equallyefficacious alternative remedy of revision provided under the Cr.P.C.itself against the impugned summoning order, particularly when no AMIT KUMAR justified reason is forthcoming which may entitle the petitioners toinvoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482Cr.P.C. Although it is not an absolute rule in every given situationthat a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of a complaintand summoning order cannot be entertained under anycircumstances, in case of availability of the alternative remedy, yet itis equally true that exceptions apart. The inherent jurisdiction of thisCourt under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of complaint and thesummoning order without availing equally efficacious alternativeremedy of revision, at the first instance, cannot be thrown open, as ageneral practice, in spite of the fact that jurisdiction of the revisionalcourt as well as this Court are parallel. This is the reason thatdespite availability of parallel remedy before the learned court ofSessions as well as this Court, for seeking pre-arrest bail underSection 438 Cr.P.C, it is being insisted by all the High Courts of thecountry that one must avail his remedy of pre-arrest bail before thelearned Court of Sessions, at the first instance, until and unless thereis an exceptional case and compelling circumstances. There is noreason, whatsoever, why the same principle based on the sameanalogy be not applied regarding inherent jurisdiction of this Courtunder Section 482 Cr.P.C. Although this Court had repeatedly held, including in a veryrecent order dated 10.9.2015 passed in CRM-M-34559 of 2013( Mrs. Dipali Mittal and others Vs. Sicom Limited) that petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, like the petitions in hand, would not bemaintainable, yet since this issue is coming up before this Courtfrequently, it is thought appropriate to render a more comprehensiveorder, referring to the cases on the subject more elaborately. In fact, the issue is no more res integra. It had been set atrest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as different High Courtsincluding this Court and even under the provisions of old Cr.P.C., aswell as Cr.P.C. of 1973. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well asdifferent High Courts of the country have not permitted any litigant,as a general rule, to invoke the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C.,when the alternative remedy is provided under the Cr.P.C. itself. The relevant judgments on the subject are as under:- Section 482 Cr.P.C, like the petitions in hand, would not bemaintainable, yet since this issue is coming up before this Courtfrequently, it is thought appropriate to render a more comprehensiveorder, referring to the cases on the subject more elaborately. In fact, the issue is no more res integra. It had been set atrest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as different High Courtsincluding this Court and even under the provisions of old Cr.P.C., aswell as Cr.P.C. of 1973. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well asdifferent High Courts of the country have not permitted any litigant,as a general rule, to invoke the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C.,when the alternative remedy is provided under the Cr.P.C. itself. The relevant judgments on the subject are as under:- 1. Khushi Ram Vs. Hashim and others, AIR 1959 SC 542.(SC) 2. Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1977 (4)SCC 551 (SC)SCC 551 (SC) 3. Arun Shankar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1999 (6) SCC146 (SC) 4. State through Special Cell, New Delhi Vs. NavjotSandhu @ Afshan Guru and others, 2003 (6) SCC 641(SC) 5. Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal, 2004 (7) SCC 338(SC) 6. Hamida Vs. Rashid @ Rasheed and others, 2008 (1)SCC 474 (SC)SCC 474 (SC) 7. Som Mittal Vs. Government of Karnataka 2008 (3)SCC 574 (SC)SCC 574 (SC) 8. Krishna Kumar Variar Vs. Share Shoppe 2010 (12)SCC 485 9. Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu Vs. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy and others, 2011 (12) SCC 437(SC) 10. State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar andothers, 2011 (14) SCC 770 (SC) 11. Mohit alias Sonu and another Vs. State of U.P. Andanother, 2013 (7) SCC 789 (SC) 12. Bachan Singh V. Harpreet Kaur 1996 (1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 806 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) 13. Amarjeet Singh V. State of Punjab 1997 (3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 204 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) 14. Mukhtiar Singh V. State of Punjab 1997 (3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 14 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) 15. M/s Golden Forests (I) Ltd. V. Registrar of Companies1999 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 758 (Punjab & Haryana HighCourt) 16. Balbir Singh Vs. Gurdial Singh 2002 (1) RCR(criminal) 518 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) 17. Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2002(3) RCR (criminal) 647 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) 18. Krishan V. State of Haryana 2002 (2) R.C.R.(criminal) 23 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) 19. Palwinder Raj Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2003 (1)RCR (criminal) 198 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) 20. Rajinder Arora alias Raju V. State of Punjab &Another 2011 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 462 (Punjab &Haryana High Court) 21. Sudhir Gowda V. State of Haryana & Anr. (CRM-M-9542 of 2014) (Punjab & Haryana High Court) 22. Joginderpal Bedi Vs. State of Punjab and others,2014 (1) RCR (criminal) 937 (Punjab & Haryana HighCourt) 23. Madhu Bala & Others V. State of Haryana 2015 (3)R.C.R. (Criminal) 881(Punjab & Haryana High Court) 24. Rajinder Singh V. State of Haryana 2015 (1) LawHerald 601 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) AMIT KUMAR 25. Mrs. Dipali Mittal and others Vs. Sicom Limited( CRM-M-34559 of 2013 decided on 10.9.2015) (Punjab& Haryana High Court) 26. Shagufta Shamas Vs CBI, 2008 (4) JCC 2339 (DelhiHigh Court) 27. Meena Singh and others Vs. Sunita Bhatia, 2014(211) DLT 650 (Delhi High Court) 28. Mahender Vs. State and another, 2014 (3) JCC 1589(Delhi High Court) 29. Ankur Mutreja Vs. Delhi Police, 2014 (9) RCR(criminal) 1913 (Delhi High Court) 30. Shika Makkar and another Vs. State (Govt. of NCT ofDelhi) and another (Crl. M.A. Nos. 3535-26 of 2015decided on 10.3.2015) (Delhi High Court) 31. Madhurima Chandra and others Vs. M/s AnsunElectronics Pvt. Ltd and another, 2015 (1) NIJ 704 (DelhiHigh Court) 32. Aman Kumar Harjai Vs. State and another, 2015 (4)AD (Delhi) 506 (Delhi High Court) 33. Bal Ram Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd and another,2015 (3) JCC 1695 (Delhi High Court) 34. Bharat S. Dahanukar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007ALL MR (Cri) 1620 (Bombay High Court) 27. Meena Singh and others Vs. Sunita Bhatia, 2014(211) DLT 650 (Delhi High Court) 28. Mahender Vs. State and another, 2014 (3) JCC 1589(Delhi High Court) 29. Ankur Mutreja Vs. Delhi Police, 2014 (9) RCR(criminal) 1913 (Delhi High Court) 30. Shika Makkar and another Vs. State (Govt. of NCT ofDelhi) and another (Crl. M.A. Nos. 3535-26 of 2015decided on 10.3.2015) (Delhi High Court) 31. Madhurima Chandra and others Vs. M/s AnsunElectronics Pvt. Ltd and another, 2015 (1) NIJ 704 (DelhiHigh Court) 32. Aman Kumar Harjai Vs. State and another, 2015 (4)AD (Delhi) 506 (Delhi High Court) 33. Bal Ram Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd and another,2015 (3) JCC 1695 (Delhi High Court) 34. Bharat S. Dahanukar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007ALL MR (Cri) 1620 (Bombay High Court) 35. Floyd D. Aguiar Vs. Bronwyn D. Aguiar and another,2007 (2) Crimes 69 ( Bombay High Court) 36. Yashwant and others Vs. State of Maharashtra andanother, 2014 ALL MLR (Cri) 998 (Bombay High Court) 37. Shri. Sanjay P. Singh and another Vs. Shri BhanuPrakash Singh and others, 2014 ALL MR (Crl.) 672(Bombay High Court) 38. Balabhadra Dash and Anr. Vs. State of Orissa andothers, 1991 CriLJ 2457 (Orrisa High Court). 39. Harsh Kapoor and others Vs. Komal Kapoor, 2013 (2)U.D. 349 ( Uttarakhand High Court). 40. K.R. Ramkumar Vs. State rep. By Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam 2004 (2) RCR (crm) 287 ( Madras HighCourt). 41. A. Muthulakshmi Vs. Inspector, North Police Station,2007 (1) MadWN (Cri) 293 (Madras High Court). 42.Mohan Lal and another Vs. State 1974 CriLJ 1407(Allahabad High Court) 43. Avadh Narain Lal Vs. State of U.P. And another 1986CriLJ 1233 (Allahabad High Court) 44. Sushil Aggarwal Vs. State of U.P. And another, 2015(3) All.LJ 19 (Allahabad High Court) 45. (Sayed) Mehrab Ali Vs. Shahid Ali and another, 1992(2) DMC 83 (Rajasthan High Court) 46. Sanjay Bhandari etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2010 (6)RCR (criminal) 2635 ( Rajasthan High Court) 47. Tanneru Ram Babu Vs. State of A.P., 2012 (7) RCR(criminal) 138, (Andhra Pradesh High Court) 48. Dipak Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Smt. Leena Chatterjee,1994 (2) CCR 1339 ( Calcutta High Court) 49. Deepak Kumar Singh @ Munna and another Vs.State of West Bengal and another, 2007 (3) AICLR 114( Calcutta High Court) 50. Jagdish Pandey Vs. State of Bihar and others, 2001CriLJ 3814 (Jharkhand High Court). 51. Madhusudan Paul Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2001 (3)RCR (Crl) 611, (Jharkhand High Court) To be fair to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, following are the judgments wherein a slightly different view has been taken but the cardinal principle of law has not been deviated:- 1. Raj Kapoor and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration)and others, AIR 1980 SC 258 (SC) 2. M/s Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque, 2005 (1) SCC 122 (SC) 3. Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd and others Vs. State ofMaharashtra and another 2009 (2) SCC 370 (SC) 4. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Faridkot Vs.M/s Sh.Durga Ji Traders and others, 2011 (14) SCC 615(SC) 5. Devendra Dutt and others Vs. State and others, 1990(1) RCR (criminal) 50 (Delhi High Court). 6. Smt. Kavita Vs. State and others 2000 CriLJ 315 (DelhiHigh Court) 7. Vishwanath Ramkrishna Patil and another Vs. AshokMurlidhar Sonar and another, 2006 (3) ALL MR (Cri) 2601(Bombay High Court) 8. Satish Soma Bhole Vs. Dr. Pravin Chandrabhan Waghand another 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 1064 (Bombay HighCourt) 9. Divyaram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, 2011(8) RCR (criminal) 1353 (Chattisgarh High Court) The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the entire case law on the subject, in para Nos. 31 to 33 of its judgment inDavinder Pal Singh Bhullar's case (supra), referring to the longcatena of earlier judgments, held as under:- IV. INHERENT POWERS UNDER SECTION 482 Cr.P.C. 5. Devendra Dutt and others Vs. State and others, 1990(1) RCR (criminal) 50 (Delhi High Court). 6. Smt. Kavita Vs. State and others 2000 CriLJ 315 (DelhiHigh Court) 7. Vishwanath Ramkrishna Patil and another Vs. AshokMurlidhar Sonar and another, 2006 (3) ALL MR (Cri) 2601(Bombay High Court) 8. Satish Soma Bhole Vs. Dr. Pravin Chandrabhan Waghand another 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 1064 (Bombay HighCourt) 9. Divyaram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, 2011(8) RCR (criminal) 1353 (Chattisgarh High Court) The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the entire case law on the subject, in para Nos. 31 to 33 of its judgment inDavinder Pal Singh Bhullar's case (supra), referring to the longcatena of earlier judgments, held as under:- IV. INHERENT POWERS UNDER SECTION 482 Cr.P.C. 31. The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.is intended to prevent the abuse of the process ofthe Court and to secure the ends of justice. Suchpower cannot be exercised to do something whichis expressly barred under the Cr.P.C. If anyconsideration of the facts by way of review is notpermissible under the Cr.P.C. and is expresslybarred, it is not for the Court to exercise its inherentpower to reconsider the matter and record aconflicting decision. If there had been change inthe circumstances of the case, it would be in AMIT KUMAR order for the High Court to exercise its inherentpowers in the prevailing circumstances and passappropriate orders to secure the ends of justice orto prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.Where there are no such changed circumstancesand the decision has to be arrived at on the factsthat existed as on the date of the earlier order, theexercise of the power to reconsider the samematerials to arrive at different conclusion is in effecta review, which is expressly barred under Section362 Cr.P.C. (See: Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee & Anr, (1990) 2 SCC 437).32. The inherent power of the court under Section482 Cr.P.C. is saved only where an order has beenpassed by the criminal court which is required to beset aside to secure the ends of justice or where theproceeding pending before a court, amounts toabuse of the process of court. Therefore, suchpowers can be exercised by the High Court inrelation to a matter pending before a criminal courtor where a power is exercised by the court underthe Cr.P.C. Inherent powers cannot be exercisedassuming that the statute conferred an unfetteredand arbitrary jurisdiction, nor can the High Court actat its whim or caprice. The statutory power has tobe exercised sparingly with circumspection and inthe rarest of rare cases (Vide: KurukshetraUniversity & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr., AIR1977 SC 2229; and State of W.B. & Ors. v. SujitKumar Rana, (2004) 4 SCC 129). 33. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot beresorted to if there is a specific provision in theCr.P.C. for the redressal of the grievance of theAMIT KUMARaggrieved party or where alternative remedy is 33. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot beresorted to if there is a specific provision in theCr.P.C. for the redressal of the grievance of theAMIT KUMARaggrieved party or where alternative remedy is available. Such powers cannot be exercised asagainst the express bar of the law and engrafted inany other provision of the Cr.P.C. Such powers canbe exercised to secure the ends of justice and toprevent the abuse of the process of court.However, such expressions do not conferunlimited/unfettered jurisdiction on the High Courtas the “ends of Justice” and “abuse of the processof the court” have to be dealt with in accordancewith law including the procedural law and nototherwise. Such powers can be exercised exdebito justitiae to do real and substantial justice asthe courts have been conferred such inherentjurisdiction, in absence of any express provision, asinherent in their constitution, or such powers as arenecessary to do the right and to undo a wrong incourse of administration of justice as provided inthe legal maxim “quando lex aliquid alique,concedit, concediture et id sine quo res ipsa essenon potest”. However, the High Court has not beengiven nor does it possess any inherent power tomake any order, which in the opinion of the court,could be in the interest of justice as the statutoryprovision is not intended to bypass the procedureprescribed. (Vide: Lalit Mohan Mondal & Ors. v.Benoyendra Nath Chatterjee, AIR 1982 SC 785Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh v. State ofGujarat & Anr. 2006 (1) R.C.R. (criminal) 675 :2006 (1) Apex Criminal 224 : AIR 2006 SC 915 ;Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi ShankarSrivastava, IAS & Anr., 2006 (3) Apex Criminal65 : AIR 2006 SC 2872 Inder Mohan Goswami &Anr. v. State of Uttranchal & Ors., 2007 (4) R.C.R. AMIT KUMAR (Criminal) 548 : 2007 (5) R.A.J. 451 : AIR 2008 SC251 and Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra& Ors., 2008 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 890 : 2008 (6)R.A.J. 293). Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in itslater judgment in Mohit's case (supra). The relevant observationsmade by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 22 to 27 of thejudgment, which aptly apply in these cases, read as under:- “In our considered opinion, thecomplainant ought to have challenged the orderbefore the High Court in revision under Section 397of Cr.P.C. and not by invoking inherent jurisdictionof the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.Maybe, in order to circumvent the provisionscontained in sub-section (2) of Section 397 orSection 401, the complainant moved the High Courtunder Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the event a criminalrevision had been filed against the order of theSessions Judge passed under Section 319 ofCr.P.C., the High Court before passing the orderwould have given notice and opportunity of hearingto the appellants. So far as the inherent power of the HighCourt as contained in Section 482 of Cr.P.C. isconcerned, the law in this regard is set at rest bythis Court in a catena of decisions. However, wewould like to reiterate that when an order, notinterlocutory in nature, can be assailed in the HighCourt in revisional jurisdiction, then there should bea bar in invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the HighCourt. In other words, inherent power of the Courtcan be exercised when there is no remedy provided AMIT KUMAR in the Code of Criminal Procedure for redressal ofthe grievance. It is well settled that inherent powerof the court can ordinarily be exercised when thereis no express provision in the Code under whichorder impugned can be challenged. Courts possess inherent power in otherstatute also like the Code of Civil Procedure(C.P.C.) Section 151 whereof deals with suchpower. Section 151 of C.P.C. reads:- “Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit orotherwise affect the inherent powers of the Courtto make such orders as may be necessary forthe ends of justice or to prevent abuse of theprocess of court.” AMIT KUMAR in the Code of Criminal Procedure for redressal ofthe grievance. It is well settled that inherent powerof the court can ordinarily be exercised when thereis no express provision in the Code under whichorder impugned can be challenged. Courts possess inherent power in otherstatute also like the Code of Civil Procedure(C.P.C.) Section 151 whereof deals with suchpower. Section 151 of C.P.C. reads:- “Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit orotherwise affect the inherent powers of the Courtto make such orders as may be necessary forthe ends of justice or to prevent abuse of theprocess of court.” This Court in the case of Padam Sen & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 218regarding inherent power of the Court underSection 151 C.P.C. observed:- “The inherent powers of the Court are in additionto the powers specifically conferred on the Courtby the Code. They are complementary to thosepowers and therefore, it must be held that theCourt is free to exercise them for the purposesmentioned in Section 151 of the Code when theexercise of those powers is not in any way inconflict what has been expressly provided in theCode or against the intentions of the Legislation.It is also well recognised that the inherent poweris not to be exercised in a manner which will becontrary to or different from the procedureexpressly provided in the Code.” In a Constitution Bench decision rendered in the case of Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527, this CourtAMIT KUMAR 2015.12.07 09:55 held that :- “The inherent jurisdiction of the Court to makeorders ex debito justiciae is undoubtedlyaffirmed by S.151 of the Code but inherentjurisdiction cannot be exercised so as to nullifythe provision of the Code of Civil Procedure.Where the Code of Civil Procedure dealsexpressly with a particular matter, the provision should normally be regarded as exhaustive.” 27. The intention of the Legislature enacting theCode of Criminal Procedure and the Code of CivilProcedure vis-à-vis the law laid down by this Courtit can safely be concluded that when there is aspecific remedy provided by way of appeal orrevision the inherent power under Section 482Cr.P.C. or Section 151 C.P.C. cannot and shouldnot be resorted to." So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inDhariwal Tobaco's case(supra), relied upon by the learned seniorcounsel for the petitioners is concerned, there is no dispute about thelaw laid down therein. However, on a careful perusal of the citedjudgment, the same has not been found to be of any help to thepetitioners, being distinguishable on facts. It is the settled principle oflaw that peculiar facts of each case are to be examined, consideredand appreciated first, before applying any codified or judgemade law AMIT KUMAR thereto. Sometimes, difference of one circumstance or additionalfact can make the world of difference, as held by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in Padmausundra Rao and another Vs. State ofTamil Nadu and others, 2002 (3) SCC 533. After referring to the abovesaid case law, this Court in thecase of Dipali Mittal (supra) held as under:- No doubt, there could not be and shouldnot be any straight jacket formula in this regard. In agiven case, if this Court comes to the conclusion, onthe basis of peculiar fact situation of the case that itis just and expedient with a view to prevent abuse ofprocess of law or to secure the ends of justice, aswarranted in a particular case, there would be noabsolute bar to entertain a petition under Section482 Cr.P.C., while invoking its inherent jurisdiction,in spite of availability of alternative remedy. After referring to the abovesaid case law, this Court in thecase of Dipali Mittal (supra) held as under:- No doubt, there could not be and shouldnot be any straight jacket formula in this regard. In agiven case, if this Court comes to the conclusion, onthe basis of peculiar fact situation of the case that itis just and expedient with a view to prevent abuse ofprocess of law or to secure the ends of justice, aswarranted in a particular case, there would be noabsolute bar to entertain a petition under Section482 Cr.P.C., while invoking its inherent jurisdiction,in spite of availability of alternative remedy. However, it is equally true that whileinvoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court underSection 482 Cr.P.C., petitioners would be underobligation to make out an exceptional case,enabling this Court to exercise its discretion underSection 482 Cr.P.C. There is no dispute that powersof this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are wideenough, yet it is also a settled principle of law thatsuch powers are to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, with a view to achieve the objects envisaged under Section 482 Cr.P.C, itself. Reverting back to the facts and circumstances of thecases in hand and respectfully following the law laid down by theHon'ble Supreme Court as well as different High Courts including thisCourt, in the cases referred to hereinabove, this Court feels nohesitation to conclude that since the petitioners have failed to makeout these cases as exceptional cases, for entertaining thesepetitions, this Court would be exceeding its jurisdiction, whileexercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petitioners alsocould not give any reason, much less cogent reasons, as to why theycould not avail the equally efficacious alternative remedy of revisionagainst the impugned summoning order, at the first instance. No other argument was raised. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of thesecases, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, all these petitionshave not been found to be maintainable. Thus, these must failprimarily on the issue of maintainability itself. Consequently, these petitions are dismissed as notmaintainable. Petitioners are relegated to their equally efficaciousalternative remedy by way of criminal revision against the impugnedsummoning order, at the first instance. As this Court has not goneinto the merits of the cases, the observations made hereinabove willnot influence the learned revisional courts, while deciding the case(s)on merits, so as to avoid any prejudice to the rights of either of the AMIT KUMAR parties. It is also clarified that if the appropriate revision petitions(s)will be filed by the petitioners against the impugned summoningorders within a period of one month from the date of receipt ofcertified copy of this order, respondent shall not raise the issue oflimitation against the petitioners herein. Resultantly, with the abovesaid observations made anddirections issued, all these petitions stand disposed of, however, nocost. (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK)JUDGE 19.10.2015Ak Sharma