CRMMO/809/2019 on 30 December 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CRMMO No.: 809 of 2019

Decided on: 30.12.2022. Ranjeet Singh and another

.…Petitioners

Versus

Pritam Chand and another

…Respondents

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioners : M/s B. Nandan Vashishta &

Hakam Bhardwaj, Advocates.

For the respondent(s) : Mr. K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Rahul Gathania,

Advocate for respondent No. 1.

: Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate

for respondent No. 2.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., in Cr. Revision No. 13-P/X/2018, titled as Prittam Singh vs. Ranjit Singh and others, dated 05.10.2019, in terms whereof the order passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. in Case No. 87-IV/2012, titled as Ranjit Singh and others vs. Kartar Chand and another, dated 10.09.2008, has been quashed and set aside.

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. The present proceedings have been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A perusal of the order impugned demonstrates that the present petitioners were proceeded against ex parte before the learned Court below. On a query put to learned Counsel for the petitioner, he stated before the Court that though the respondents were duly served before the learned Court below yet as their Counsel did not appear before the Court, it is on this count that they were proceeded against ex parte.

3. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter still remains that as on the date when the impugned order was passed, no assistance was rendered by the petitioners to the learned Court below. In these circumstances, it is not understood as to how the present petition is maintainable and that too under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. Article 227 of the Constitution of India inter alia provides that every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. It is settled law that in exercise of power of superintendence, the High Court is not to act as the Court of appeal. The Court exercises its power only if learned Courts below do not exercise power vested in them prudently or they exercise such powers as are not vested in them. It is not the case of the petitioners herein that the order passed by the learned Court below is beyond its jurisdiction. That being the case, as the adjudication by the learned Court below is on merit, this Court is of the considered view that no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is called for at the behest of parties like the petitioners, who did not even appear before the learned Court below despite service.

5. Incidentally, on the prayer which was made by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the case be remanded back, this Court observed that let the petitioners show their bonafide and pay cost to compensate the other party for this lis, to which learned Counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, expressed his inability.

The petition therefore stands dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)

Judge December 30, 2022 (narender)