LI Network
Published on: 26 September 2023 at 11:51 IST
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that when interpreting statutory provisions, courts are obligated to adhere to the clear and explicit wording without introducing new interpretations or amendments.
In a case where the petitioner challenged a Trial Court’s order and sought the registration of an FIR, the Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the provision’s plain language. It noted that the petitioners should not be allowed to bypass the existing and effective statutory remedy available to them under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Justice Saurabh Banerjee stated, “It is trite law that a Court while interpreting a provision of the Statute is bound to abide by what is expressed and contained therein without interfering or altering or carving out either a new meaning or something which is not manifest therefrom. As per the facts of the present case, admittedly, when an appropriate and specific remedy of law under the (same) Statute being the CrPC is already available to the Petitioners, this Court in view of the aforesaid conclusion and even otherwise as per the legal position finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court.”
The State argued that the petition was not maintainable under Section 482 of the CrPC, as an alternative and effective remedy of filing a revision under Sections 399, 400, read with Section 397 of the CrPC was available to the petitioners.
The Court underlined that Section 482 of the CrPC should be sparingly used and only when the petitioners can demonstrate to the Court’s satisfaction that it is necessary. Furthermore, the Court noted that there was no clear indication in the petition suggesting that this was an exceptional case warranting the Court’s interference under Section 482 of the CrPC.
The Court stated, “Accordingly, and even otherwise, after finding that there is no pleading to the effect that the case of the petitioners is such that this Court can exercise its inherent powers for interfering under Section 482 of the CrPC, which undisputedly is to be exercised sparingly, this Court is constrained to hold that the instant petition in the present form is not maintainable in the eyes of the law or under the facts involved. In view thereof, this Court is hesitant to enter into the domain of the disputes involved herein under the present petition filed under the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C.”
Given the lack of a valid argument supporting the use of inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Court concluded that the petition was not legally maintainable based on the circumstances of the case.
