N.Sumathi v. The Commissioner Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.09.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.OP No.18224 of 2016 N.Sumathi ... Petitioner Vs
1. The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai - 8.
2. The Inspector of Police, Basin Bridge Police Station, Pulianthope, Chennai ... Respondents Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the respondents to register the FIR on the basis of the complaint dated 08.08.2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prabakaran For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the respondents to register the FIR on the basis of the complaint dated 08.08.2016. 2.
In State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others [(2011) 14 SCC 770], the Supreme Court has held as under:
"63 Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lies before the High Court against an order passed by the court subordinate to it in a pending case/proceedings. Generally, such powers are used for quashing criminal proceedings in appropriate cases. Such an application does not lie to initiate criminal proceedings or set the criminal law in motion. Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised if the order of the Subordinate Court results in the abuse of the "process" of the court and/or calls for interference to secure the ends of justice. The use of word
"process" implies that the proceedings are pending before the Subordinate Court. When reference is made to the phrase "to secure the ends of justice", it is in fact in relation to the order passed by the Subordinate Court and it cannot be understood in a general connotation of the phrase. More so, while entertaining such application the proceedings should be pending in the Subordinate Court. In case it attained finality, the inherent powers cannot be exercised. The party aggrieved may approach the appellate/revisional forum. Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised if injustice is done to a party, e.g., a clear mandatory provision of law is overlooked or where different accused in the same case are being treated differently by the Subordinate Court. (emphasis supplied).
An inherent power is not an omnibus for opening a Pandora's box, that too for issues that are foreign to the main context. The invoking of the power has to be for a purpose that is connected to a proceeding and not for sprouting an altogether new issue. A power cannot exceed its own authority beyond its own creation. . . . . ."
3.
Following the said judgment, this Court dismissed Crl.O.P. Nos.19197, 19198, 19343 and 19359 to 19363 of 2016 by a detailed order dated 27.09.2016.
4. In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to follow the procedure laid down in the order dated 27.09.2016 passed by this Court in Crl.O.P. Nos. 19197, 19198, 19343 and 19359 to 19363 of 2016 and file a fresh petition, if necessary. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(J) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vsi2 To
1. The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai - 8.
2. The Inspector of Police, Basin Bridge Police Station, Pulianthope, Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.K.Prabakaran, Advocate, S.R.No.55299 Crl.OP No.18224 of 2016 GJ(CO) CA(07/11/2016)