High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19175 of 2024 Applicant :- Sukhendra Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- S.M.Faraz I. Kazmi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. Learned A.G.A. for the State has raised preliminary objection that the criminal revision against impugned summoning order has already been dismissed and thus, the instant application under section 482 CrPC is not maintainable.
Legal Reasoning
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the application under section 482 CrPC is maintainable and in support of his contention, learned counsel has referred the following case laws:- (i) Mahmood Ali & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 613 (ii) Lalankumar Singh & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 833 (iii) Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2024 INSC 626 4. It is apparent from Section 397(3) CrPC that it bars second revision. The question is when the Sessions Judge refused to interfere with the order of the Magistrate whether the High Court's jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC can be invoked? It is settled view that the inherent powers cannot be invoked in a manner that the effect would be just entertaining a second revision, which has been expressly barred except in extraordinary cases. The bar as contained in Sub-Section (3) of Section 397 CrPC cannot be circumvented by resorting to Section 482 CrPC. A second revision under the grab of a quash petition under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable. The case laws relied by learned counsel for the applicant do not deal with the issue in question and thus, not relevant on the question of maintainability of this application. In Deepti alias Arati Rai v. Akhil Rai & Ors, (1995) 5 SCC 751, the Apex Court held as under: "4. ... It should have also applied its mind to the aspect that second revision application, after dismissal of the first one by sessions court is not maintainable and that inherent power under Section 482 of the Code cannot be utilized for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. As we find that the order passed by the High Court is not legal and just it will have to be set aside." 5. In case of Laxmi Bai Patel Vs. Shyam Kumar Patel; 2002 0 Supreme (SC) 283, the Court held: "3.Before taking up the merits of the case, it would be proper to consider Page No.# 6/7 the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the High Court in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a case where the sessions court exercising revisional power under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. has dismissed the revision petition by the aggrieved party, a second revision petition about acceptance of the same party is barred. The position is well- settled that in such a case power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court in rare cases and in exceptional circumstances where the court finds that permitting the impugned order to remain undisturbed will amount to abuse of process of the court and will result in failure of justice." 6. Similarly in the case of Dharampal & Ors. v. Ramshri; 1993 (1) SCC 435, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that- " .... Section 397(3) bars a second revision application by the same party. It is now well- settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot be utilized for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. Hence, the High Court had clearly erred in entertaining the second revision at the instance of Respondent 1. Onthis short ground itself, the impugned order of the High Court can be set aside." 7. In the case of Rajathi Vs. C.Ganesan; 1999 SCC (Cri) 1118, the Supreme Court held as follows:- "In Krishnan v. Krishnaveni (1997 (4) SCC 241 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 544), this Court explained the scope and power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. The question before the Court was if in view of the bar of second revision under sub-section (3) of Section 397 of the Code was prohibited, whether inherent power of the High Court is still available under Section 482 of the Code. Ordinarily, when revision has been barred by Section 397(3) of the Code, a person - accused/complainant - cannot be allowed to take recourse to the revision to the High Court under Section 397(1) or under inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code since it may amount to circumvention of the provisions of Section 397(3) or Section 397(2) of the Code. It is seen that the High Court has suo motu power under Section 401 and continuous supervisory jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Code. So, when the High Court on examination of the record finds that there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the courts or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice or order passed or sentence imposed by the Magistrate requires correction, it is but the duty of the High Court to have it corrected at the inception lest grave miscarriage of justice would ensue. It is, therefore, to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process that the High Court is preserved with inherent power and would be justified, under such circumstances, to exercise the inherent power and in an appropriate case even revisional power under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of the Code. As stated earlier, it may be exercised sparingly so as to avoid needless multiplicity of procedure, unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of proceedings. ....'' 8. Thus, it is clear that that availing of remedy of revision to Sessions Judge under Section 399 Cr.P.C. does not bar a person from invoking power of High Court under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. but High Court should not act as a second Revisional Court under grab of exercising inherent powers. While exercising inherent powers in such a matter, the High Court should interfere only where it is satisfied that if complaint is allowed to be proceeded with, it would amount to abuse of the process of Court or that interest of justice otherwise call for quashing of the charges. When High Court on examination of record finds that there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of the Court or the required statutory procedure has not been followed with or there is failure of justice, it is the duty of High Court to have corrected it at the inception lest grave miscarriage of justice would ensue. It is therefore to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process that High Court is preserved with inherent powers and would be justified under such circumstance to exercise inherent powers. Thus, in such a case Court would interfere only where it is satisfied that if the impugned orders are allowed to exist or the complaint is allowed to be proceeded with it would amount to abuse of process of Court or that interest of justice otherwise call for quashing of the impugned orders / proceedings. 9. In view of aforesaid the application under section 482 CrPC is held maintainable subject to aforesaid conditions and limitations. 10. Put up as fresh on 18.11.2024 for hearing. Order Date :- 23.10.2024 Anand