AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter ""1973 Code""), the petitioners have prayed to quash
the proceeding against them pending before the learned C.J.M. -cum- Duty Magistrate, Electricity Magistrate, Jammu, Janipur, arising out of Bahu
Fort P.S. Case No.190 of 2011 which was instituted on 30.11.2011 for the offences punishable under sections 406, 409, 420 read with section
120-B of the Ranbir Penal Code.
Section 1(2) of 1973 Code states that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and
Kashmir. Thus 1973 Code which is applicable to the rest of the country specifically excludes its application thereof to the State of Jammu and
Kashmir. The Code of Criminal Procedure, Samvat 1989 (Act No.23 of 1989) (hereafter ""1989 Code"") extends to the whole of Jammu and
Kashmir State.
Section 5(1) of the 1989 Code states that all offences under the Ranbir Penal Code shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt
with according to the provisions hereinafter contained. Section 28 of the 1989 Code states that subject to the other provisions of the Code, any
offence under the Ranbir Penal Code may be tried by the High Court, or by the Court of Session or by any other Court by which such offence is
shown in the eighth column of the second schedule to be triable.
Section 177 of 1989 Code like section 177 of 1973 Code states that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into or tried by a Court within
the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed. Section 561A of 1989 Code deals with saving of inherent powers of the High Court which
is similar to section 482 of 1973 Code.
Section 561B of 1989 Code like section 483 of 1973 Code states that the High Court shall exercise its Superintendence over the Courts of
Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it as to ensure that there is an expeditious and proper disposal of cases by such Magistrates.
As per section 2(e)(i) of 1973 Code, ""High Court"" means in relation to any State, the High Court for that State. Section 4(1)(f) of 1989 Code
states that ""High Court"" means the highest Court of criminal appeal and revision in the Jammu and Kashmir State.
Therefore, if any illegality is committed during the pendency of a criminal proceeding in any Court, the High Court within whose territorial and
supervisory jurisdiction such criminal Court situates can invoke its inherent power under section 482 of 1973 Code to prevent abuse of process of
such Court and correct the illegality committed. If such criminal Court comes within the territorial and supervisory jurisdiction of Jammu and
Kashmir High Court, section 561A of 1989 Code has to be invoked to prevent abuse of process of such Court.
In case of Azizabi -Vrs.- St. Mother Oil Mills reported in ILR 1996 KARNATAKA 546, it is held that the words, ''any Court'' used in section
482 Cr.P.C., must be understood to mean a Criminal Court situate within the territorial and supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court of a
particular State. The High Court''s existing inherent powers which are preserved by section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot extend to proceedings of the
Courts outside its supervisory jurisdiction. The High Court of one State, therefore, cannot acting under section 482 of Cr.P.C. quash the
complaints or proceedings pending on the file of a Court situate outside its territorial jurisdiction.
In case of Goyal Agencies through its Partners -Vrs.- State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. decided on 31.01.2008 by a Division Bench of
Allahabad High Court, it is held as follows:-
3.1.......Complaint which is under challenge has been filed before Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Srinagar, State of Jammu and Kashmir. What is
important to note is neither Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 nor Indian Penal Code, 1860 applies to that State. State of Jammu and Kashmir has
got different Cr.P.C. known as Jammu and Kashmir Code of Criminal Procedure. Similarly instead of Indian Penal Code, 1860, it has Ranbir
Penal Code. This is clear from Section 1 Cr.P.C. 1973 which reads thus:
Short title, extent and commencement-
(1) This Act may be called the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir:
.................................................................
Similarly in Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 1 provides thus:
Title and extent of operation of the Code- This Act shall be called the Indian Penal Code, and shall extend to the whole of India except the
State of Jammu and Kashmir. The twin sections of two sibling Codes leaves no room for doubt that State of Jammu and Kashmir has different
Penal Code and different Code of Criminal Procedure. As mentioned above, Ranbir Penal Code and Jammu and Kashmir Criminal Procedure
Code are applicable there. This Court however is governed by the former two Codes i.e. Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 and does not have any jurisdiction to entertain any application under the later Codes applicable in the State of Jammu and
Kashmir because of the above two ouster of extent clauses. Further deliberation on this aspect of the matter will be only be academic and hence,
for the sake of brevity, we eschew that exercise.
3.2. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is to be noted that the complaint was filed before Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Sri Nagar under
Ranbir Penal Code, hereinafter referred to as (RPC). The question that immediately crops up is as to whether this Court can entertain any writ
petition to quash the proceeding initiated under that Code RPC which does not extend to this Court? The answer to the surfaced question is in
negative as from both the angles (neither Ranbir Penal Code applies in Uttar Pradesh nor Indian Penal Code applies in State of Jammu and
Kashmir). Such an exercise will be void ab initio and without jurisdiction. This High Court can entertain only such writ petitions which are
previewed within the ambit of those Laws, Rules, Regulations, and Orders etc. which are applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Any law which
does not apply here oust the legal as well as constitutional jurisdiction of this Court and hence this Court cannot entertain any petition in any of it''s
jurisdiction regarding such a Law, Rule, Regulation, and Order etc.
3.3. Analysing from such an angle, this writ petition with the prayer to quash criminal complaint filed under RPC before this Court is not
maintainable because of the above reasons.
In view of the above discussions, since the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 specifically excludes the application thereof to the State of
Jammu and Kashmir, therefore provision under section 482 of 1973 Code cannot be invoked by any litigant seeking quashing of any case pending
in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, the prayer made by the petitioners in this application cannot be entertained by this Court exercising
the inherent power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the CRLMC application stands dismissed.