The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant judgment clarifying the relationship between procedural remedies and inherent judicial powers. The Court held that the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot alone be a valid reason to dismiss an application filed under Section 482 CrPC. The verdict came in the case of Akanksha Arora vs. Tanay Maben (Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2024) and was pronounced by a bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sandeep Mehta.
The Court’s ruling criticized procedural rigidity and emphasized the duty of courts to deliver substantive justice, underscoring that procedural technicalities should not hinder the administration of justice, particularly in cases impacting fundamental rights such as maintenance disputes.
Case Background
The case originated from a dispute over interim maintenance. Akanksha Arora, the appellant, had been granted interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC by the Principal Judge, Family Court. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded, she approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking an enhancement. However, the High Court dismissed her petition, reasoning that she should have pursued the remedy of criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant sought relief from the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court’s dismissal on purely procedural grounds had caused undue hardship and delayed justice.
Legal Issues Addressed
The Supreme Court addressed two fundamental legal questions:
1. Can the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC be curtailed by the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 397 CrPC?
2. Should courts prioritize procedural technicalities over substantive justice in the exercise of their jurisdiction?
The judgment also touched upon broader themes of judicial responsibility, particularly in matters of inherent powers under CrPC.
Supreme Court’s Observations
In its judgment, the Supreme Court firmly reiterated the purpose and scope of Section 482 CrPC. It criticized the High Court’s narrow interpretation of procedural requirements and underscored that justice should not be sacrificed for hyper-technical compliance. The bench drew upon several landmark judgments, including:
– Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra: Highlighted that the “label” of a petition is immaterial, and courts must focus on the substance of the grievance.
– Prabhu Chawla vs. State of Rajasthan: Asserted that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are broad and cannot be ousted by procedural remedies under Section 397 CrPC.
The Supreme Court observed:
“The availability of an alternative remedy of criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC, by itself, cannot be a valid ground to dismiss an application under Section 482 CrPC. Justice must be served, and procedural pathways should not obstruct the court’s inherent duty to correct errors and prevent abuse of process.”
The Court noted that the High Court should have taken a more pragmatic approach, converting the Section 482 petition into a criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC, rather than dismissing it outright.
The Verdict
The apex court set aside the High Court’s order and remanded the matter with clear instructions to convert the dismissed Section 482 petition into a criminal revision petition under Section 397 CrPC. The High Court was directed to hear and decide the case on its merits after affording both parties an opportunity to present their arguments.
The judgment stated:
“The judicious approach would have been to convert the petition under Section 482 CrPC into a revision under Section 397 CrPC rather than dismissing it on procedural grounds.”
