Criminal Misc. No. M-33937 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-33937 of 2008 Date of Decision: 26.02.2010 Madan Mohan Sharma son of Late Sh. Dina Nath Sharma, r/o H. No. 173/2, Jourian Bhattian, Patiala. ... Petitioner Versus 1. Amit son of Narinder Kumar; 2. Sumit son of Narinder Kumar; 3. Bhawna daughter of Narinder Kumar; all residents of Ward No. 3, Rajputtan Street, Kurali, District Ropar. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the order dated 21.08.08, passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala (Annexure P4), vide which, the complaint, qua the respondents, was dismissed, has been filed by the petitioner. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, on 25.12.05, Madan Mohan Sharma, complainant, received a telephonic message, from the Manager, State Bank of Patiala, PSEB Branch, Patiala, where, he Criminal Misc. No. M-33937 of 2008 2 was posted, that the work of the bank, was to be done and after receiving the same, he went to his office. It was stated that, at about 12.15 PM, he received a telephonic message, from his sister Sharda Rani, that Anju Lata, one of the accused, alongwith 4/5 ladies and 7/8 persons, were calling bad names to him and her and forcibly trespassing into his house. On receiving the aforesaid message, from his sister, the complainant, immediately rushed, to his house, and found, that the accused and their companions, had forcibly trespassed therein. It was further stated that the accused persons manhandled both the complainant and his sister Sharda, as also threatened to kill them. It was further stated that the accused alongwith their companions, caused damage to the household articles, belonging to the complaint. It was further stated that even Amit, nephew of Anju Lata, accused, also called bad names to Pushpa Attri, sister of the complainant, and also manhandled her. It was further stated that, thereafter, the complainant raised hue and cry, which attracted Rajinder Singh son of Jaimal Singh, resident of Jourian Bhattian, and, Ashok Kumar son of Suraj Bhan, resident of Arya Samaj, to the spot, who saved them from the clutches of the accused. It was further stated that some of the assailants, on seeing Rajinder Singh and Ashok Kumar, fled from the spot. It was further stated that, thereafter, the matter, was reported, to the Police, as a result whereof, Baldev Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector alongwith some other Police officials, reached the spot and apprehended Anju Lata, Raj Rani and Bhawna. It was further stated that all the three Criminal Misc. No. M-33937 of 2008 3 accused, were taken to the Police Station. It was further stated that, thereafter, the complainant, lodged DDR No. 13 dated 25.12.05 with the Police, but no action was taken by it. Ultimately, the aforesaid complaint was filed. 3. After recording the preliminary evidence, and, on going through the documents, on record, the trial Court, dismissed the complaint, against Amit, Sumit and Bhawna, accused, whereas, it summoned Anju Lata, Raj Rani and Kishori Lal, as accused, to face trial, for the offences, punishable under Sections 323, 427, 452 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the instant petition, has been filed by the petitioner. 5. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 6. The Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the allegations, contained in the complaint, constituted the offences, against the respondents. He further submitted that the criminal complaint, was not filed, against the respondents, by the petitioner, with malafide intention. He further submitted that, even the order dated 21.08.08 (Annexure P4), vide which, the complaint, against the respondents, was dismissed, by the trial Court, being without application of mind, was liable to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that, against the order dated 21.08.08, a revision-petition, was maintainable. He further submitted that, no revision-petition, Criminal Misc. No. M-33937 of 2008 4 was filed, by the petitioner, against the order impugned. He further submitted that the petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., provides the extra-ordinary remedy. He further submitted that when an ordinary remedy, is available, to the petitioner, he cannot resort to extra- ordinary remedy. 8. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. The order dated 21.08.08, vide which, the complaint qua respondents No. 1 to 3, was dismissed, by the trial Court, is revisable. No revision-petition was admittedly filed by the petitioner, against the order dated 21.08.08. While defining the powers of the High Court, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Apex Court, in State, through Special Cell, New Delhi Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afshan Guru and others 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 860 (SC), held that the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not to be resorted to, if there is a specific provision, in the Code or any other enactment, for redressal of the grievance of the aggrieved party. In view of the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, by the Apex Court, no resort to the extraordinary remedy, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, could be made, in view of the ordinary remedy of revision, available under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As stated above, the ordinary remedy under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was not Criminal Misc. No. M-33937 of 2008 5 availed of by the petitioner. Had the revision-petition been filed, against the order dated 21.08.08, in the event of acceptance of the same, by the Court of Sessions, the proceedings, as a whole, would have terminated. In view of the above, the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not maintainable. The same is, thus, liable to be dismissed, being not maintainable. 9. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M- 33937 of 2008, being not maintainable, must fail, and the same stands dismissed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 10. Registry is directed, to comply with the order, by sending the copies thereof, to the Courts concerned. 26.02.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE