Courts Are Bound To Abide By Expressed Interpretation Of A Provision Without Altering It In A Way That Is Not Manifested: Delhi HC Reiterates
The Delhi High Court reiterated that when interpreting a provision of the Statute, the courts are bound to follow what is explicitly stated without adding new meanings or altering it in any way.
The Court dismissed the Petition, challenging the order of the Trial Court and seeking to get an FIR registered. The Court observed that it is important to adhere to what is clearly expressed within the provision. The Court noted that the Petitioners must not be permitted to bypass the existing and effective statutory remedy under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which is available to them.
“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 thereform. 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”, Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed.
Advocate H.S. Bhullar appeared for the Petitioners and Additional Public Prosecutor Meenakshi Dahiya appeared for the Respondents.
A Criminal Petition was filed challenging the order of the Trial Court and seeking to register an FIR based on the complaint filed by the Petitioner.
The State contended that the Petition was not maintainable under Section 482 of the CrPC as an alternate efficacious remedy of filing a revision under Sections 399, 400 read with Section 397 of the CrPC was available with the Petitioners.
The Court observed that the application of Section 482 of the CrPC is a rare and cautious practice, only to be exercised when the Petitioners can prove to the satisfaction of the Court that it is necessary. Furthermore, the Court observed that there is no clear indication in the Petition to suggest that this is an exceptional case that warrants the Court's interference under Section 482 of the CrPC.
The Court noted, “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 constraint to hold that the instant petition in the present form is not maintainable in the eyes of law or under the facts involved. In view thereof, this Court is hesitant in entering into the domain of the disputes involved herein under the present petition filed under the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C”.
The Court observed that there is no valid argument to support the use of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, which should only be used cautiously. Therefore, based on the circumstances, the Court held that the Petition is not legally feasible or viable.
Cause Title: Satish Lamba & Anr v NCT Of Delhi & Ors
