Law Insider India

Legal News, Current Trends and Legal Insight | Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Discretionary Power U/s 482 CrPC can be Exercised Only When Clear Perversity or Error is Disclosed

2 min read

Khushi Gupta

Published on: June 6, 2022 at 18:32 IST

The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Asha Menon observed that discretionary power of Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised only when clear perversity or error is disclosed.

FIR was registered against the Respondent No.2 and others for having committed offences under Sections 380, 406, 420, 506, 120B Indian Penal Code. During investigations, the premises of M/s V.P. Automotive Components were raided, and 8 moulds were seized which belonged to M/s S.S. Manufacturing.

On the same day, upon a raid of the premises of M/s LIT India Private Limited, which was a company that belonged to the Respondent No. 2, 111 boxes of finished goods/remotes were also seized. The Petitioner moved an application under Section 451 CrPC and the 8 moulds were released to him.

FIR was registered by the Petitioner as a partner of respondent No.2 submitting that they had set up a partnership firm M/s S.S. Manufacturing for manufacturing remote controls.

As per the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 2 was fully aware of the hypothecation of the machinery to Andhra Bank and the loan, as also the fact that in default of repayment, the loan would be recovered from the property belonging to the Petitioner’s father mortgaged to Andhra Bank.

The Respondent No. 2’s prayer that the moulds be given to the Investigating Officer, would have only resulted in the ruination of the machinery which was so fundamental to the manufacturing process, the Petitioner added.

The Respondent submitted that in appropriate cases, an interlocutory order, such as a superdari order, could be reviewed. When the first order was passed, no notice was issued to the Respondent No. 2, though he was 60% shareholder in M/s S.S. Manufacturing. At the time it was passed, the petitioner had misrepresented to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

The Bench was of the view that the impugned order passed after hearing all the parties resulting in the recall of the earlier order cannot be held to be perverse or beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court.

Hence, no interference was called for by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code.