Hasan Raza vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Prashant Kumar, J.—This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.06.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in Cri. Misc. Case No. 12 of 2011, whereby and whereunder he allowed the application filed by O.P. No. 2 under section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''Act''). Petitioner further prayed for quashing the order dated 23.09.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Cri. Revision No. 123 of 2013, whereby he rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of learned Judicial Magistrate dated 14.06.2013. It appears that O.P. No. 2 had filed an application under section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 for issuance of a direction upon the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,16,717/- towards various heads i.e. maintenance amount for the period of Iddat., maintenance for the children, Den Mehar, value of the gifts given to her at the time of marriage by her parents and relatives etc.

It is admitted that O.P. No. 2 was married to petitioner as per the Muslim Law. It is also admitted position that petitioner divorced O.P. No. 2 on 12.04.2011. Thereafter present application filed by the O.P. No. 2, claiming the aforesaid amount as per the provisions contained under section 3 of the Act. It appears that learned Judicial Magistrate, after considering the evidences of the parties, had concluded that O.P. No. 2 is entitled to aforesaid amount, accordingly, the learned Magistrate, vide her order dated 14.06.2013 directed the petitioner to pay aforesaid amount to the O.P. No. 2 within one month. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 123 of 2013, which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, who after considering the reasoning and evidences available on record, had concluded that there is no illegality in the order of the learned Magistrate. Against the aforesaid two orders, the present Cri. M.P. filed.

On the other hand, Sri Raja Ravi Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the 2nd revision is barred under section 397 of the Cr.P.C., but an application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is maintainable against the orders of the courts below if there is a grave miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of court. He relied upon the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in Krishnan and another Vs. Krishnaveni and another, .

In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon''ble Apex Court held that ordinarily in view of the provisions contained in section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C., a person, accused or complainant, cannot be allowed to take recourse of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court or under inherent power of the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for challenging the order of revision passed against him by the learned Sessions Judge, because it amounts to circumvention of the provision of section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C. However, the High Court has got supervisory power and if on examination of the record finds that there is a grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of courts, or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice or order passed or sentence imposed by the Magistrate, requires correction, the High Court in its inherent power can correct the same. Thus, it is clear that if the revision of an accused or complainant is dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, ordinarily, it is not open to the High Court to entertain an application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. but in exceptional circumstances, the High Court can entertain such application if it finds that there is a grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the courts or required statutory procedure has not been complied with by the courts below.

Keeping in view the aforesaid law, I considered the orders passed by the learned courts below and find that they had passed the order after taking into account the evidences available on the record and had given sufficient reason for coming to the conclusion that petitioner is liable to pay the amounts claimed in the application.

I find no illegality in the order of learned Magistrate and/or in the order of learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro. Thus, I conclude that this is not a fit case in which the application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be entertained, as according to me the same will amount to circumvention of the provisions of section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In view of my aforesaid findings, I am not inclined to entertain this application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.