- (1.)THE two petitioners Rajeev Kumar and Bibhav Kumar are the charge sheeted accused of case crime number 55 of 2007 (Case No. 5859 of 2007), under Sections 353, 504, 506 IPC, police station Sector 20, NOIDA, District Gautam budh Nagar vide Annexure No. 9 to this writ petition. C. J. M. Gautam Budh Nagar has taken cognizance of the offence on 5-7-2007 and registered Case No. 5859 of 2007, State v. Rajeev Kumar and others and have summoned the accused persons vide his order dated 5-7-2007 fixing 5-8-2007 for their appearance. Hence, this writ petition by the petitioner with the prayer to issue writ order or direction in nature of certiorari quashing of all proceedings emanating from FIR of Crime No. 55 of 2007 (Case No. 5859 of 2007) for the aforesaid offences vide Annexure No. 9 to this writ petition. The ancillary prayer is to direct respondent authorities to compensate the petitioners for loss of their life and personal liberty on account of their illegal detention on 25-1-2007 to be determined and fixed by this Court as demanded in paragraph 35 of the writ petition, which has been quantified as Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rs. Three lac ).
(2.)SRI Ravi Kiran Jain, learned senior counsel argued the petition on behalf of the petitioners and the learned AGA in opposition
(3.)AT the very outset of ,this writ petition the question which cropped up for adjudication was that if the petitioners, have got an alternative efficacious or speedy remedy of challenging the summoning order by filing a revision of an application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. why we should entertain this writ petition? The said question was mooted for our consideration because of the preliminary objection raised by learned AGA that the petitioners have got an alternative statutory remedy under Section 397 (1) read with 401 (1) Cr. P. C. as well as under Section 482 Cr. P. C. and therefore, this Court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of The Constitution of India. Allowing the litigants to eschew the statutory remedy available to them and invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court will saddle the dockets of this Court with unsurmountable load of writ petitions to an unmanageable limits, which should not be encouraged. Corollary of the argument is that before this Court exercise extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners should be relegated to exhaust all the statutory alternative remedies. Learned AGA contended that possession of power is one thing and exercise thereof is quite another. Even though there is no dearth in exercising writ power but it should not be exercised to circumvent equally efficacious speedy and effective statutory remedy.