The court can always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same by exercising its powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. :High Court of Sikkim

The inherent power of the High Court is an inalienable attribute of the position it holds with respect to the courts subordinate to it. They are necessarily judicial when they are exercisable with respect to a judicial order and for securing the ends of justice and the same issue was held in the judgement passed by a single bench judge Hon’ble MR Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J..In the matter Anil Jain Versus Rekha Jain,[ Crl. M. C. No. 11 of 2021] dealt with an issue mentioned above.

On 13.04.2021 the learned CMJ heard the parties, noted that despite several reminders the petitioner had failed to comply with the order passed more than a year ago. The affirmation of the respondent on the affidavit was sufficient to make out an offence under section 31(1) of the DV Act. The learned CJM thereafter directed the respondent to take necessary steps for the institution of a fresh case for trial of the petitioner for the offence under section 31(1) of the DV Act.

The Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra) was examining the case in which an application for interim maintenance was filed under section 125 of the Cr. P.C. The Supreme Court in the facts of the said case decided to lay down certain guidelines. Attention was drawn by the learned counsel to the final directions issued i.e., direction (e) regarding enforcement/execution of the order of maintenance. The direction of the Supreme Court was for enforcement/execution of orders of maintenance. It was directed that order or decree of maintenance may be enforced under section 28 (A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956; section 20(6) of the DV Act; and section 128 of Crpc as may be applicable. The order of maintenance may be enforced as a money decree, including civil detention, attachment of property, etc. as per the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC), more particularly sections 51, 55, 58, 60 read with Order 21 CPC.

The court perused the facts and arguments presented in the case on perusal of the petition and documents annexed thereto including the complaint and the interim orders this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under section 482 Cr. P.C. The petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to seek an appropriate remedy before the Courts in which the matters are pending.

Click here to read the judgment

Judgment reviewed by Sakshi Mishra

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *