(Ravindra @ Kala v. Vijay Rana), Police Station- Barout, Distric
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:172560 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20786 of 2024 Applicant :- Vijay Rana Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Shankar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 08.06.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Baghpat in Complaint Case No.7081 of 2021 (Ravindra @ Kala Vs. Vijay Rana), Police Station- Barout, District- Baghpat, as well as against order dated 08.05.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Baghpat in Criminal Revision No.181 of 2023.
Legal Reasoning
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the impugned complaint has been filed making false and baseless allegations and no prima-facie case is made out against him. The father of complainant was stated to be witness of the alleged incident but he was not examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The summoning order dated 08.06.2023 was challenged by the applicant before Sessions Judge in revision but the revision has been dismissed in an arbitrary manner without considering facts and law. It was submitted that in fact earlier applicant has lodged the first information report on 25.07.2021 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 IPC regarding an incident dated 11.03.2021 against the opposite party no.2 and others and impugned complaint has been filed as a counterblast to the said case. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicant. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that applicant has been summoned by the learned Judicial Magistrate by considering all facts and law. The revision against summoning order has already been dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Baghpat and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. At the outset it may be mentioned that impugned summoning order dated 08.06.2023 has already been challenged by the applicant in criminal revision, which has been dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Baghpat vide impugned order dated 08.05.2024. It is correct that availing of the remedy of the revision before the Sessions Judge under Section 399 CrPC does not bar a person from invoking the power of the High Court under Section 482 but it is equally true that the High Court can not act as a second Revisional Court under the garb of exercising inherent powers. While exercising its inherent powers in such a matter it has to be conscious of the fact that the Sessions Judge has declined to exercise his revisory power in the matter. 7. In Deepti alias Arati Rai v. Akhil Rai & Ors, (1995) 5 SCC 751, the Apex Court held 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. 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 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 482Cr.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." 8. 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." 9. In the case of Rajathi Vs. C.Ganesan; 1999 SCC (Cri) 1118, the 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.'' 10. Thus, it is clear that availing of remedy of revision before 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 garb of exercising inherent powers. While exercising inherent powers in such a matter, the High Court can 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. 11. In the instant matter, the complainant has made allegation that on 09.10.2021 while he along with his father was going on motorcycle, the applicant alongwith two unknown persons stopped them at the point of pistol and assaulted them and threatened that if they did not compromise the case lodged earlier against applicant, he would kill them. The version of complainant is supported by the witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The applicant was summoned for offence under Sections 341, 504, 506 IPC. The revision against summoning order has already been dismissed. No patent illegality or abuse of process of Court could be shown. Considering entire facts and aforesaid position of law, no case for
Decision
interference in the impugned order is made out. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and thus liable to be set aside. 12. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 5.11.2024 SP/-