Court No. - 80
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4512 of 2020
Petitioner :- Santi Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Bhardwaj Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present misc. petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the order dated 25.09.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Azamgarh in criminal revision no. 257 of 2018 as well as to quash the order dated 24.07.2018 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Azamgarh in complaint case no. 133 of 2016, under Section 203 Cr.P.C., police station Devgaon, district Azamgarh.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner has filed the above- stated complaint case against the private respondents making allegations that petitioner is an old and illiterate lady and that private respondents have taken her to tehsil for execution of a 'Rehan-nama', but by way of cheating they have got executed a sale- deed of her land. It has been submitted that the allegations made by petitioner/complainant disclose a prima facie offence and that her version was also supported by her statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and by witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C., but despite that the complaint has been dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. vide impugned order dated 24.07.2018. Learned counsel has further submitted that the said order dated 24.07.2018 was challenged before the sessions court by filing the criminal revision no. 257 of 2018, but the said revision has also been dismissed vide impugned order dated 25.09.2019. Learned counsel has also submitted that civil suit filed by petitioner is already pending and that a case for summoning of private respondents is made out and thus, the impugned orders are not sustainable and the same are liable to be set aside.
4. Per contra, it has been argued by learned A.G.A. that the dispute is purely civil in nature and that a civil suit is already pending between the parties and thus, impugned orders do not suffer any illegality or perversity.
5. It is well settled that in supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over subordinate Courts, the scope of judicial review is very limited and narrow. It is not to correct the errors in the orders of the court below but to remove manifest and patent errors of law and jurisdiction without acting as an appellate authority. This power involves a duty on the High Court to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. But this power does not vest the High Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes.
6. For interference under Article 227, the finding of facts recorded by the Authority should be found to be perverse or patently erroneous and de hors the factual and legal position on record. (See: Nibaran Chandra Bag Vs. Mahendra Nath Ghughu, AIR 1963 SC 1895; Rukmanand Bairoliya Vs. the State of Bihar & ors., AIR 1971 SC 746; Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha & ors., AIR 1980 SC 1896; Laxmikant R. Bhojwani Vs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Singh Pardeshi, (1995) 6 SCC 576; Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Pravinbhai Jasbhai Patel & ors., (1997) 7 SCC 300; M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sub-Judicial Magistrate & ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749; and Virendra Kashinath Ravat & ors. Vs. Vinayak N. Joshi & ors. (1999) 1 SCC 47).
7. In Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329, the Court said that power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court. The above authority has been cited and followed in Kokkanda B. Poondacha and others Vs. K.D. Ganapathi and another AIR 2011 SC 1353 and Bandaru Satyanarayana Vs. Imandi Anasuya (2011) 12 SCC 650.
8. In Abdul Razak (D) through Lrs. & others Vs. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle and others (2010) 2 SCC 432, Court reminded that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227, High Courts should not act as if they are exercising an appellate jurisdiction.
9. In T.G.N. Kumar Vs. State of Kerala and others (2011) 2 SCC 772, the Court said that power of superintendence conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is both administrative and judicial, but such power is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority.
10. It is apparent from the above stated pronouncement that in supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over subordinate Courts, the scope of judicial review is very limited and narrow and even the errors of law cannot be corrected in exercise of such powers. The power enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution is of judicial superintendence and it cannot be used to upset conclusions of fact, however, erroneous, unless such conclusions are so perversed or unreasonable that no court could have ever reached than.
11. In the instant case perusal of record shows that mere allegations against the private respondents is that they have got executed a sale-deed from petitioner on the pretext of execution of a 'Rehan-nama'. It has not been disputed that the sale-deed has been executed by the petitioner and a civil suit is also stated to be pending between the parties before the court concerned. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that impugned orders suffer any patent illegality or perversity. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any patent error of law or of jurisdiction in the impugned orders. Considering the facts of the instant case in the light of the above stated legal position, no case for warranting any interference with the impugned orders is made out. Consequently, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. The instant writ petition lacks merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.01.2021 Anand