^ Guddu Rai alias Vijay Prakasli Rai Versiis Respoadeats State of Chhattisgai'h throiigh the Secretaiy, Department of Excise and others. -27-- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge \^b <^ WntPetitioni_C_) No,J852 of 2007 Petstioner tespondents Guddu Rai aiias Viiav Prakash Rai, son of Shri Ramvriksha, aged tbout 35 years, resident of 4B/Street No.71, Sector, P.S. Biiai Nagar, District Durg. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Sscreta.'y, Department of Exciss, D.K.S. Bhawan, ManSraiaya, Raipur. The Sub Inspector (Excise) Bhiiai Circle No.1, Bhiiai, DisSrict Durg, Ashok Renke, son of Shri Ram Renke, aged about 47 years, resident of Purana Shiv Mandir, Vaishali Nagar. P.S. Suoela, Disfrict Durg. fpetition under Article 226 ot'the Constitution of India) SB: Hon'bie Shri Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Present: S'nri Dinesh R.K. Tiwgri, counsel for Snri Utkarsh Verma, Dy. Govt. respondents No. 1 and 2/StaSe. petitioner. ^for ^ on 3.7 'April. 2007] 3y this petition flied under Articls 226 ofthe Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the c'riminal prc against him and one Mr. Ashok Renke in Criminal Case in the Court of learned Chief Judicia! Magistrate, quashina of warrants issued asainst him on various pending No. 6735/2005 ra and further i.e.. 5-12- 2005, 20-3-2CX3S, 2-5-2006, 7-11-2006 and 6.1-2007. ^) <<. 2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, on 5-10-2005 the officers of the Exclse Deoartment raided the vacant house of one Late Shri Madhukar Rao, situated at in front of St. Xavier School, Kripai Nagar, Kohaka. Admittediy, the house was in possession of Mr. Ashok Renke. On raid, the liquor in heavy quantlty was found stored without any iicense or permission from the Excise Department. 3. The Excise Authorities seized the said iiiegaS liciuor from the said house in presence of the witnesses and prepared a Panchnama and registered a case under Drovisions of Section 34 of the Excise Act, agalnst the Detitioner and Fvlr. Ashok Renke. Durina investlfiation it was found that the petitioner was also invoived in the offencs. Accordingiy, the Excise Authorities fiied a case in the Court of Chief Judicjai Maaistrate, Durg. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dura, took coanizance of the matter and framed charges against the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Renke. Warrants were issued against the petitioner on 5-12-2005, 20-3-2006, 2-5-2006, 7-11-2006 and 6-1-2007. i{ appears that the petitioner remained absconding and despite warrant. he couid not be arrested and produced before ths Magistrate. 4. The petitioner has Tited this petition on the ground that the Chief Judiciai iViagistrate, Durg, without applying his mind registered a case against the petitioner. Thus, the criminai proceedings, charge and warrants issued against the petitioner be quashed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that this Court has admittedly jurisdiction to quash the charge-sheei, if on ths basis of docyments produced by the prosecution, it is found that the Magistrate has reaistered the case without apDllcationof mind. ^ttte»'.®S^ ^^''••s:':^'1f,.^^:-^ ^ _'"'.' ". ~'—'~- ........-i-.A;.'*^;.a^,[L.a.aijinKs^SSS.:'iE5:""?""i-a-sS^; ^ 5. The petitioner has not produced any documents except seif same statement that he was not involved in the offence. The petitioner has further remained absconding despite warrant issued against him and has not come forward to out forward his case before the Magistrate for quashing the charge sheet. The petitioner has approached this Court without producing sufficient documents to quash the proceedings, charge as weli as warrant issued asaihst him on various dates. :~t, 6. The Supreme Court in the matter of SWosaraf Hossain Khan Vs. Bhagheeratha Engmeering LSd. And others in para 25 held as under: "25. It is no dou'ot true that in a crimina! matter also the High Court may exereise its e?draordinary writ jurisdiction but interference with an order of the Magistrate taking cognizance under Section 190 of ths Code of Criminal Procedure vyill stand somewhat on a different footing as an order taking cognizance can be the subject-matter of a revisional jurisdiction as well as of an application invoking the inherent jurisdlction of the h'igh Court. A writ of certiorari ordinarilv would not be issued bv a writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution against a judicial officer. (See Naresh Shridhar Mifajkar v. State of Maharashtra). However, we are not oblivious of a decision of Shis Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai wherein this Court upon noticing Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and also relying on a Constitution Bench of this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra opined that a judicia! court wouid also be subject to exercise of writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The said decision has again been followed in Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash. It is, however, not necsssary to dilate on the matter any further. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal ; aooe'i 3 scc o5s sn ^; %•- •it- Procedure was noticed recently bv this court in State of U.P. v. Surendra Kumar hoiciing that even jn terms thereof, the Court cannot pass an order beyond the scope of the appijcation thereof. in Surya Dev RS! we may, however, notice that this Court categorical!y stated that the High Court in issuing a writ of certiorari exercises a vsry limited jurisdiction. It a!so made a distinction between exercise of jurisd'iction by t'ne High Court for issuance of a writ of certiorarl under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. !t categoricatiy iaid down that while exeroising its jurisdiction under Articie 226, the High Court can issue a writ of certiorari only when an error apparent on the face of the record appears as such; the error shouid be seif-svident. Thus, an error according to this Court needs to be estabiished. As regards exercising the jurisdic'aon under Article 227 of the Constitution of India it was heid: (SCC p.689, para 24). "The power may be exeroised in cases occasioning grave injustlce or failure of justice such as when (i) the court or tribunai has assurned a jurisdictlon which it does not have, (ii) has falled to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such faiSurs occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though avaiiabie is being exercised in a manner which tantamounts to overstepping the limits ofjurisdtction." 7. Applying to the weil settled dictum laid down by Supreme Court to the facts of the case, wherein no materiai facts have been produced before this Court. ordinariiy the High Court should not interfere with an order takina cognizance passed bv a competent Court of lav/ except in a propercase. ^t •c. Raju 8) As a resuit, for the reasons stated dismissed. No order as to costs. ~~ herejnabove, ihis petition is Sd/- Satish K. Agaihotri Judge ¥-