PRABHU CHAWLA versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

Citation: [2016] 4 S.C.R. 281 · Decided: 05-09-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 4 S.C.R. 281 
PRABHU CHAWLA 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 842of2016) 
SEPTEMBER OS, 2016 
[J. CHELAMESWAR, SHIVA KIRT! SINGH AND 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.397, 482 - Invoking 
inherent power u/s. 482 when alternative remedy of revision u/s.397 
available - Held: Availability of alternative remedy of criminal 
revision u/s.397 by itself cannot be good ground to dismiss an 
application u/s. 482. 
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matters back to High 
Court, the Court 
HELD: 1. Section 482 Cr.P.C. begins with a non-obstante 
clause to state: "Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or 
affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders 
as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, 
or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to 
secure the ends of justice." A fortiori, there can be no total ban 
on the exercise of such wholesome jurisdiction where, in the words 
of Krishna Iyer, J. "abuse of the process of the Court or other 
extraordinary situation excites the court's jurisdiction. The 
limitation is self-restraint, nothing more." Since Section 397 
Cr.P.C. is attracted against all orders other than interlocutory, a 
contrary view would limit the availability of inherent powers under 
Section 482 Cr.P.C. only to petty interlocutory orders, which is 
wholly unwarranted and undesirable. [Para 6) [286-E-G) 
Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. and Ors. v. State of 
Maharashtra and another (2009) 2 SCC 370 : 2008 
(17) SCR 844 - relied on. 
Mohit alias Sonu and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh 
and another (2013) 7 SCC 789 : 2013 (7) SCR 86 -
held not correct law. 
281 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
282 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 
Sanjay Bhandari v. State of Rajasthan 2009 (1) CrLR 
(Raj.) 282; R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 
866 : 1960 SCR 388; Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka 
(2008) 3 SCC 574 : 2008 (3) SCR 130; Raj Kapoor 
and Ors v. State and Ors. (1980) 1 SCC 43 : 1980 (1) 
SCR 1081; Madhu Limaye 1( The State of Maharashtra 
(1977) 4 SCC 551 : 1978 (1) SCR 749 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
2008 (17) SCR 844 
relied on 
Para 2 
2013 (7) SCR 86 
held not correct law Para 3 
2009 (1) CrLR (Raj.) 282 referred to 
Para3 
1960 SCR 388 
referred to 
Para 5 
2008 (3) 
SCR 130 
referred to 
Paras 
1980 (1) 
SCR 1081 
referred to 
Para 5 
1978 (1) 
SCR 749 
referred to 
Para 5 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 842 of2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.04.2009 of the High Court 
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition 
No. 296 of2007 
WITH 
Cr!. A. Nos. 844 and 845-846 of 2016. 
P. K. Goswami, Sr. Adv., Arunabh Chowdhury, Jayant Mohan, 
Vaibhav Tomar, Kanna Dorjee, (for M/s. Coac), Rajshekhar Rao, Ms. 
Chatanya Puri, D. Mahesh Babu, Advs. for the Appellant. 
Shiv Man gal Sharma, AAG, Saransh Kumar, Brajesh Pandey, Ram 
Naresh Yaday, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Milind Kumar, Advs. for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. First we take up appeals of Prabhu Chawla and Jagdish 
Upasane and ors. as these two criminal appeals seek to assail a common 
order dated 02.04.2009 whereby the High Court of Judicature for 
PRABHU CHAWLA V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 
[SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.] 
Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed the petitions preferred by the appellants 
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal 2 Procedure (for brevity 
'Cr.P.C. '). High Court held the petitions to be not maintainable in view 
of judgment ofRajasthan High Court in the case ofSanjay Bhandari v. 
State ofRajasthan' (impugned in the other connected appeal) holding 
that availability of remedy under Section 397 Cr.P.C. would make a 
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. not maintainable. 
3. While considering all these matters at the SLP stage, on 
05.07.2013, a Division Bench found the impugned order of the High 
Court to be against the law stated in Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. 
and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and another2 • In that case the 
Division Bench concurred with the proposition oflaw that availability of 
alternative remedy of criminal revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. by 
itself cannot be a good ground to dismiss an application under Section 
482 ofCr.P.C. But it noticed that a later Division Bench judgment of this 
Court in the case of Moh it alias So nu and anoth
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.