In order to decide the above issue, it may be appropriate
for this court to examine as to what the words “proceedings” and
“regular” would mean. The word ‘proceeding’ is defined in the Shorter
Oxford Dictionary “as doing a legal action or process, any act done by
the authority of a court of law.” In other words, as per the dictionary
meaning of the word ‘proceeding’, it is the course of procedure in an
action at law and an action, measure or step in a course of business or
conduct. The Criminal Procedure Code does not define the word
‘proceeding’ though the same is being used in the provisions of some
of the sections like Section 195 (1)(b), 116 (3) etc. of the Criminal
Procedure Code. Various High Courts have examined the word
‘proceeding’ with reference to the particular statute involved therein
and have expressed their views that the word ‘proceeding’ is not
purely a technical expression with a definite meaning attached to it.
Necessarily the term indicates a prescribed mode in which judicial
business is conducted. A ‘proceeding’ may in some statutes mean an
action or that which initiates an action and in other enactments it may
also mean a step in an action. The expression ‘proceedings’ with
reference to a case, would mean taking of steps in connection with the
further progress of the case. When a case is listed for hearing and the
case is taken up by the court and an order is also made in the case, it
would be proceedings in the case.
As per Webster’s New World Dictionary, the word
‘regular’ is defined as consistent or habitual in action; not changing;
uniform; conforming to a standard or to a generally accepted rule or
mode of conduct. As regards the word ‘regularity’ also, various High
Courts have examined it and expressed their views that the term
‘regularity’ is a well recognised term and well recognised ground of
judicial interference on an appeal or revision. The word ‘regular’ gives
a constant course of conduct without any break or breach. It is
‘irregular’ when the procedure followed is in violation of the principles
[1] Heard Shri M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner and Shri Kh. Mani, learned Senior Advocate appearing
for the Respondent No. 1.
[2] By this Criminal Revision Petition, the petitioner is
questioning the irregularity of the proceedings in respect of the case
Print Page
for this court to examine as to what the words “proceedings” and
“regular” would mean. The word ‘proceeding’ is defined in the Shorter
Oxford Dictionary “as doing a legal action or process, any act done by
the authority of a court of law.” In other words, as per the dictionary
meaning of the word ‘proceeding’, it is the course of procedure in an
action at law and an action, measure or step in a course of business or
conduct. The Criminal Procedure Code does not define the word
‘proceeding’ though the same is being used in the provisions of some
of the sections like Section 195 (1)(b), 116 (3) etc. of the Criminal
Procedure Code. Various High Courts have examined the word
‘proceeding’ with reference to the particular statute involved therein
and have expressed their views that the word ‘proceeding’ is not
purely a technical expression with a definite meaning attached to it.
Necessarily the term indicates a prescribed mode in which judicial
business is conducted. A ‘proceeding’ may in some statutes mean an
action or that which initiates an action and in other enactments it may
also mean a step in an action. The expression ‘proceedings’ with
reference to a case, would mean taking of steps in connection with the
further progress of the case. When a case is listed for hearing and the
case is taken up by the court and an order is also made in the case, it
would be proceedings in the case.
As per Webster’s New World Dictionary, the word
‘regular’ is defined as consistent or habitual in action; not changing;
uniform; conforming to a standard or to a generally accepted rule or
mode of conduct. As regards the word ‘regularity’ also, various High
Courts have examined it and expressed their views that the term
‘regularity’ is a well recognised term and well recognised ground of
judicial interference on an appeal or revision. The word ‘regular’ gives
a constant course of conduct without any break or breach. It is
‘irregular’ when the procedure followed is in violation of the principles
of Natural Justice and fair play.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Cril. Revn. Petn. No. 8 of 2015
Shri K. Meghachandra Singh,
V
Oinam (O) Itamani Devi,
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KH. NOBIN SINGH
Dated: 11-08-2015
Citation: 2016 CRLJ4332 Manipur
AT IMPHAL
Cril. Revn. Petn. No. 8 of 2015
Shri K. Meghachandra Singh,
V
Oinam (O) Itamani Devi,
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KH. NOBIN SINGH
Dated: 11-08-2015
Citation: 2016 CRLJ4332 Manipur
[1] Heard Shri M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner and Shri Kh. Mani, learned Senior Advocate appearing
for the Respondent No. 1.
[2] By this Criminal Revision Petition, the petitioner is
questioning the irregularity of the proceedings in respect of the case
being Cril. Misc. Case No. 44 of 2015 pending before the learned
Sessions Judge, Bishnupur.
[3.1] According to the petitioner, he is now serving as
Additional Superintendent of Police, Bishnupur District, Manipur. On
a complaint lodged by one Ngangom (O) Chaobi Devi of Tronglaobi
Makha Leikai, Bishnupur District, Manipur, an FIR No. 43(4)2015 BPR–
PS u/s 409/418/420/120-B IPC was registered on 25-04-2015 against
3 (three) persons including Shri Oinam Jawan Singh, the husband of
the respondent No. 1. Before Shri Oinam Jawan Singh could be
arrested in connection with the said FIR, he had obtained an
anticipatory bail from the Sessions Judge, Bishnupur on 20-05-2015. It
is the further case of the petitioner that on 03-06-2015, Shri Oinam
Jawan Singh was arrested by the Police personnel, Lamphel Police
Station in connection with the FIR No. 56(2)2015 LPS u/s 409/418/
420/468/471/120–B IPC. The said arrest was effected by the Lamphel
Police personnel on the strength of a warrant of arrest issued by
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West in Cril. Misc. Case No.
97 of 2015.
[3.2] The Cril. Misc. Case No. 44 of 2015 was filed by the
Respondent No. 1 before the learned Sessions Judge, Bishnupur for
making a reference to the Hon’ble High Court for initiating contempt
proceedings against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has
violated the court’s order dated 20-05-2015 passed in Cril. Misc. Case
(AB) No. 39 of 2015 granting anticipatory bail to the husband of the
Respondent No. 1. On 05-06-2015, the learned Sessions Judge,
Bishnupur was pleased to issue notice to the petitioner with the
direction that the petitioner should appear before it in person on
09-06-2015. On receipt of the summon dated 08-06-2015, the petitioner
appeared before the learned Sessions Judge on 09-06-2015 and on his
prayer, the matter was adjourned to 16-06-2015 for showing cause. In
the meanwhile, the present Cril. Revision Petition has been filed by the
petitioner challenging the said proceedings on the inter-alia grounds
that the learned Sessions Judge, with malafide intention, had taken
cognizance without verifying, through the learned APP, as to whether
the Respondent No. 1’s husband had been arrested in connection with
FIR No. 43(4)2015 BPR–PS u/s 409/418/420/120-B IPC or not and that
the learned Sessions Judge had issued the notice, with direction for
personal appearance, without application of mind.
[4] The said Cril. Revision Petition is contested by the
respondent No. 1 by filing an affidavit-in-opposition contending interalia
that the petition is not maintainable at all as the petitioner has not
challenged any finding, sentence or order passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Bishnupur and that the petitioner is aggrieved only by
the summon dated 08-06-2015 which is rendered infructuous since the
petitioner has already appeared before the Court on 09-06-62015. It is
further submitted that on 03-06-2015, when her husband along with his
friends went to Bishnupur District Police Station for recording his
statement, the respondent No. 1’s husband was arrested by the Officerin-charge,
Bishnupur Police Station as directed by the petitioner
despite the order granting anticipatory bail being passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Bishnupur. The respondent No. 1’s husband
was kept in the lock-up till early morning of the next day i.e., dated
04-06-2015. While the respondent No. 1’s husband was in custody of
the Bishnupur Police Station, he was taken to the Bishnupur Hospital
for medical check-up at about 8:00 p.m. along with Oinam
Dhaneshwor Singh and Smt. Laishram Rajeshwori Devi. The arrest and
detention of the Respondent No. 1’s husband was witnessed by many
who were also detained along with him and as such, the present writ
petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
[5] The exercise of revisional power by the High Court under
Section 397 is to call for the records of any inferior criminal court and
to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding,
sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any
proceedings of such inferior court and to pass appropriate orders. In
other words, the grounds on which the power can be exercised are
two - (a) where the finding, sentence or order is illegal or improper and
(b) where the proceedings are irregular. From the perusal of the
averments made in the present Criminal Revision Petition, it is
indubitably clear that the petitioner has not questioned the correctness
or legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bishnupur and this inference is
evident from the main prayer made herein which is only to set aside
the proceedings of the Crl. Misc. Case No. 44 of 2015. Therefore, the
short question that arise for consideration by this court is as to whether
the proceedings are irregular or not.
[6] In order to decide the above issue, it may be appropriate
for this court to examine as to what the words “proceedings” and
“regular” would mean. The word ‘proceeding’ is defined in the Shorter
Oxford Dictionary “as doing a legal action or process, any act done by
the authority of a court of law.” In other words, as per the dictionary
meaning of the word ‘proceeding’, it is the course of procedure in an
action at law and an action, measure or step in a course of business or
conduct. The Criminal Procedure Code does not define the word
‘proceeding’ though the same is being used in the provisions of some
of the sections like Section 195 (1)(b), 116 (3) etc. of the Criminal
Procedure Code. Various High Courts have examined the word
‘proceeding’ with reference to the particular statute involved therein
and have expressed their views that the word ‘proceeding’ is not
purely a technical expression with a definite meaning attached to it.
Necessarily the term indicates a prescribed mode in which judicial
business is conducted. A ‘proceeding’ may in some statutes mean an
action or that which initiates an action and in other enactments it may
also mean a step in an action. The expression ‘proceedings’ with
reference to a case, would mean taking of steps in connection with the
further progress of the case. When a case is listed for hearing and the
case is taken up by the court and an order is also made in the case, it
would be proceedings in the case.
As per Webster’s New World Dictionary, the word
‘regular’ is defined as consistent or habitual in action; not changing;
uniform; conforming to a standard or to a generally accepted rule or
mode of conduct. As regards the word ‘regularity’ also, various High
Courts have examined it and expressed their views that the term
‘regularity’ is a well recognised term and well recognised ground of
judicial interference on an appeal or revision. The word ‘regular’ gives
a constant course of conduct without any break or breach. It is
‘irregular’ when the procedure followed is in violation of the principles
of Natural Justice and fair play.
[6] It is indubitably clear that the words ‘proceedings’ and
‘regular’ are not capable of any definite meaning and are to be
understood with reference to the objectives sought to be achieved in
the relevant statute. In the present case, a Cril. Misc. Application No.
44 of 2015 was filed by the Respondent No. 1 on 05-06-2015 when the
learned Sessions Judge, Bishnupur was pleased to issue notice with the
direction that the petitioner should appear in person. The summon
dated 08-06-2015 was served upon the petitioner on the same day and
on 09-06-2015 the petitioner appeared before the learned Sessions
Judge and prayed for some time for filing show cause which was
granted by the learned Sessions Judge adjourning the case till
16-06-2015. On 16-06-2015, when the case was taken up for further
proceedings, the learned Sessions Judge adjourned the case till
22-06-2015 on the prayer made by the O.C, Bishnupur Police Station.
That is how the proceedings in the said case have commenced and the
same are being challenged by the petitioner herein by filing the present
Criminal Revision Petition on 12-06-2015 mainly on two grounds that
the learned Sessions Judge issued the notice for appearance without
application of mind and that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have
given an opportunity to the learned APP for verification whether the
Respondent No. 1’s husband was arrested by the Bishnupur P.S. or not
before issuing the summon to the petitioner. These grounds could be
good grounds for questioning the legality or correctness of the order
dated 05-06-2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge but have no
much relevance or value as regards the irregularity of the proceedings.
As has been stated in the preceding para, the said order dated
05-06-2015 or for that matter any finding or sentence passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, has not been challenged in the present petition
nor is there any prayer for quashing/setting aside the same.
[7] After analyzing the observations made by the various
High Courts and in the context of Section 397 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, the word ‘proceedings’ would mean actions or steps
taken by the learned Sessions Judge, including orders, towards the
disposal of the said Cril. Misc. Case in accordance with law. The
proceedings can be said to have just commenced at the time when the
order dated 05-06-2015 was passed by the learned Sessions Judge and
there is no irregularity in that. The only thing by which the petitioner
might be aggrieved, is that the time period given in the summon for
appearing before the learned Sessions Judge by the petitioner, was too
short. But that grievance is no longer available with him since the
petitioner has already appeared before the learned Sessions Judge on
09-06-2015 in response to and in compliance of the summon dated 08-
06-2015 and all issues relating to the said summon have become
academic. In order to substantiate his contention, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Kumar Dhankar Vs.
State of Haryana & anr. reported in (2012) 11 SCC 252 wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the revisional jurisdiction under
Section 397 Cr.P.C was available to Respondent No. 2 in challenging
the order of the Magistrate directing issuance of summons. There is no
issue at all as regards the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the above case. But the said law is not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case for the reason that the petitioner has
not challenged the order dated 05-06-2015, passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, issuing summons to him. The petitioner has challenged
only the proceedings on the ground of being irregular but the
petitioner is unable to show as to how the proceeding can be said to be
irregular when it has just commenced on the passing of the order dated
05-06-2015 issuing summons to him. The question of irregularity may
arise in a case where there is breach or break in the uniformity of the
actions or steps being taken by the Court. There is no question of such
breach or break in the proceeding of the case being Cril. Misc. Case No.
44 of 2015 because it is at its initial stage and in other words, it is just
the beginning of it.
[8] In view of the above observations, this court is of the
view that the present petition is devoid of any merit and is,
accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. The registry is
directed to return the Case Records to the learned Sessions Judge,
Bishnupur at the earliest possible and the parties are directed to appear
before the learned Sessions Judge, Bishnupur on 20-08-2015 for further
proceedings in the said case being Cril. Misc. Case No. 44 of 2015.
JUDGE
Sessions Judge, Bishnupur.
[3.1] According to the petitioner, he is now serving as
Additional Superintendent of Police, Bishnupur District, Manipur. On
a complaint lodged by one Ngangom (O) Chaobi Devi of Tronglaobi
Makha Leikai, Bishnupur District, Manipur, an FIR No. 43(4)2015 BPR–
PS u/s 409/418/420/120-B IPC was registered on 25-04-2015 against
3 (three) persons including Shri Oinam Jawan Singh, the husband of
the respondent No. 1. Before Shri Oinam Jawan Singh could be
arrested in connection with the said FIR, he had obtained an
anticipatory bail from the Sessions Judge, Bishnupur on 20-05-2015. It
is the further case of the petitioner that on 03-06-2015, Shri Oinam
Jawan Singh was arrested by the Police personnel, Lamphel Police
Station in connection with the FIR No. 56(2)2015 LPS u/s 409/418/
420/468/471/120–B IPC. The said arrest was effected by the Lamphel
Police personnel on the strength of a warrant of arrest issued by
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West in Cril. Misc. Case No.
97 of 2015.
[3.2] The Cril. Misc. Case No. 44 of 2015 was filed by the
Respondent No. 1 before the learned Sessions Judge, Bishnupur for
making a reference to the Hon’ble High Court for initiating contempt
proceedings against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has
violated the court’s order dated 20-05-2015 passed in Cril. Misc. Case
(AB) No. 39 of 2015 granting anticipatory bail to the husband of the
Respondent No. 1. On 05-06-2015, the learned Sessions Judge,
Bishnupur was pleased to issue notice to the petitioner with the
direction that the petitioner should appear before it in person on
09-06-2015. On receipt of the summon dated 08-06-2015, the petitioner
appeared before the learned Sessions Judge on 09-06-2015 and on his
prayer, the matter was adjourned to 16-06-2015 for showing cause. In
the meanwhile, the present Cril. Revision Petition has been filed by the
petitioner challenging the said proceedings on the inter-alia grounds
that the learned Sessions Judge, with malafide intention, had taken
cognizance without verifying, through the learned APP, as to whether
the Respondent No. 1’s husband had been arrested in connection with
FIR No. 43(4)2015 BPR–PS u/s 409/418/420/120-B IPC or not and that
the learned Sessions Judge had issued the notice, with direction for
personal appearance, without application of mind.
[4] The said Cril. Revision Petition is contested by the
respondent No. 1 by filing an affidavit-in-opposition contending interalia
that the petition is not maintainable at all as the petitioner has not
challenged any finding, sentence or order passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Bishnupur and that the petitioner is aggrieved only by
the summon dated 08-06-2015 which is rendered infructuous since the
petitioner has already appeared before the Court on 09-06-62015. It is
further submitted that on 03-06-2015, when her husband along with his
friends went to Bishnupur District Police Station for recording his
statement, the respondent No. 1’s husband was arrested by the Officerin-charge,
Bishnupur Police Station as directed by the petitioner
despite the order granting anticipatory bail being passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Bishnupur. The respondent No. 1’s husband
was kept in the lock-up till early morning of the next day i.e., dated
04-06-2015. While the respondent No. 1’s husband was in custody of
the Bishnupur Police Station, he was taken to the Bishnupur Hospital
for medical check-up at about 8:00 p.m. along with Oinam
Dhaneshwor Singh and Smt. Laishram Rajeshwori Devi. The arrest and
detention of the Respondent No. 1’s husband was witnessed by many
who were also detained along with him and as such, the present writ
petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
[5] The exercise of revisional power by the High Court under
Section 397 is to call for the records of any inferior criminal court and
to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding,
sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any
proceedings of such inferior court and to pass appropriate orders. In
other words, the grounds on which the power can be exercised are
two - (a) where the finding, sentence or order is illegal or improper and
(b) where the proceedings are irregular. From the perusal of the
averments made in the present Criminal Revision Petition, it is
indubitably clear that the petitioner has not questioned the correctness
or legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bishnupur and this inference is
evident from the main prayer made herein which is only to set aside
the proceedings of the Crl. Misc. Case No. 44 of 2015. Therefore, the
short question that arise for consideration by this court is as to whether
the proceedings are irregular or not.
[6] In order to decide the above issue, it may be appropriate
for this court to examine as to what the words “proceedings” and
“regular” would mean. The word ‘proceeding’ is defined in the Shorter
Oxford Dictionary “as doing a legal action or process, any act done by
the authority of a court of law.” In other words, as per the dictionary
meaning of the word ‘proceeding’, it is the course of procedure in an
action at law and an action, measure or step in a course of business or
conduct. The Criminal Procedure Code does not define the word
‘proceeding’ though the same is being used in the provisions of some
of the sections like Section 195 (1)(b), 116 (3) etc. of the Criminal
Procedure Code. Various High Courts have examined the word
‘proceeding’ with reference to the particular statute involved therein
and have expressed their views that the word ‘proceeding’ is not
purely a technical expression with a definite meaning attached to it.
Necessarily the term indicates a prescribed mode in which judicial
business is conducted. A ‘proceeding’ may in some statutes mean an
action or that which initiates an action and in other enactments it may
also mean a step in an action. The expression ‘proceedings’ with
reference to a case, would mean taking of steps in connection with the
further progress of the case. When a case is listed for hearing and the
case is taken up by the court and an order is also made in the case, it
would be proceedings in the case.
As per Webster’s New World Dictionary, the word
‘regular’ is defined as consistent or habitual in action; not changing;
uniform; conforming to a standard or to a generally accepted rule or
mode of conduct. As regards the word ‘regularity’ also, various High
Courts have examined it and expressed their views that the term
‘regularity’ is a well recognised term and well recognised ground of
judicial interference on an appeal or revision. The word ‘regular’ gives
a constant course of conduct without any break or breach. It is
‘irregular’ when the procedure followed is in violation of the principles
of Natural Justice and fair play.
[6] It is indubitably clear that the words ‘proceedings’ and
‘regular’ are not capable of any definite meaning and are to be
understood with reference to the objectives sought to be achieved in
the relevant statute. In the present case, a Cril. Misc. Application No.
44 of 2015 was filed by the Respondent No. 1 on 05-06-2015 when the
learned Sessions Judge, Bishnupur was pleased to issue notice with the
direction that the petitioner should appear in person. The summon
dated 08-06-2015 was served upon the petitioner on the same day and
on 09-06-2015 the petitioner appeared before the learned Sessions
Judge and prayed for some time for filing show cause which was
granted by the learned Sessions Judge adjourning the case till
16-06-2015. On 16-06-2015, when the case was taken up for further
proceedings, the learned Sessions Judge adjourned the case till
22-06-2015 on the prayer made by the O.C, Bishnupur Police Station.
That is how the proceedings in the said case have commenced and the
same are being challenged by the petitioner herein by filing the present
Criminal Revision Petition on 12-06-2015 mainly on two grounds that
the learned Sessions Judge issued the notice for appearance without
application of mind and that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have
given an opportunity to the learned APP for verification whether the
Respondent No. 1’s husband was arrested by the Bishnupur P.S. or not
before issuing the summon to the petitioner. These grounds could be
good grounds for questioning the legality or correctness of the order
dated 05-06-2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge but have no
much relevance or value as regards the irregularity of the proceedings.
As has been stated in the preceding para, the said order dated
05-06-2015 or for that matter any finding or sentence passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, has not been challenged in the present petition
nor is there any prayer for quashing/setting aside the same.
[7] After analyzing the observations made by the various
High Courts and in the context of Section 397 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, the word ‘proceedings’ would mean actions or steps
taken by the learned Sessions Judge, including orders, towards the
disposal of the said Cril. Misc. Case in accordance with law. The
proceedings can be said to have just commenced at the time when the
order dated 05-06-2015 was passed by the learned Sessions Judge and
there is no irregularity in that. The only thing by which the petitioner
might be aggrieved, is that the time period given in the summon for
appearing before the learned Sessions Judge by the petitioner, was too
short. But that grievance is no longer available with him since the
petitioner has already appeared before the learned Sessions Judge on
09-06-2015 in response to and in compliance of the summon dated 08-
06-2015 and all issues relating to the said summon have become
academic. In order to substantiate his contention, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Kumar Dhankar Vs.
State of Haryana & anr. reported in (2012) 11 SCC 252 wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the revisional jurisdiction under
Section 397 Cr.P.C was available to Respondent No. 2 in challenging
the order of the Magistrate directing issuance of summons. There is no
issue at all as regards the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the above case. But the said law is not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case for the reason that the petitioner has
not challenged the order dated 05-06-2015, passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, issuing summons to him. The petitioner has challenged
only the proceedings on the ground of being irregular but the
petitioner is unable to show as to how the proceeding can be said to be
irregular when it has just commenced on the passing of the order dated
05-06-2015 issuing summons to him. The question of irregularity may
arise in a case where there is breach or break in the uniformity of the
actions or steps being taken by the Court. There is no question of such
breach or break in the proceeding of the case being Cril. Misc. Case No.
44 of 2015 because it is at its initial stage and in other words, it is just
the beginning of it.
[8] In view of the above observations, this court is of the
view that the present petition is devoid of any merit and is,
accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. The registry is
directed to return the Case Records to the learned Sessions Judge,
Bishnupur at the earliest possible and the parties are directed to appear
before the learned Sessions Judge, Bishnupur on 20-08-2015 for further
proceedings in the said case being Cril. Misc. Case No. 44 of 2015.
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment