Rajesh Kumar v. Revti Prasad and Others), under Sections
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:186994 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22388 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Uma Dutt Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of the entire proceedings, including summoning order dated 02.08.2022, of Complaint No. 1101 of 2017 (Rajesh Kumar Vs. Revti Prasad and Others), under Sections - 147, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Sikandara, District - Agra, pending before the concerned Court. The order dated 25.01.2024, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No.30, Agra in Criminal Revision No. 648 of 2022 (Rajesh Kumar Vs. Revti Prasad and Others), is also being impugned, whereby the revision filed by the applicant was dismissed.
Legal Reasoning
submitted that a prima facie case against opposite party no.6 and 7 is made out. Similarly a prima facie case under Section - 420 I.P.C. is also made out against all the private opposite parties. Referring to these facts, it was submitted that both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. It may be stated that the impugned summoning order dated 02.08.2022 has already been upheld by the Session court in revision. It is correct that availing of the remedy of the revision before the Sessions Judge under Section 399 Cr.P.C. 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 should not act as a second Revisional Court under the garb of exercising inherent powers. 7. In Deepti aliasArati 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 482Cr.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 can 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. While exercising its inherent powers in such a matter the Court has to be conscious of the fact that the Sessions Judge has declined to exercise his revisory power in the matter. 11. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, in the instant matter, it may be observed that the complainant has lodged the complaint against private opposite parties alleging that an agreement was executed between applicant and accused persons and an amount of Rs. one lakh was paid as part payment. It was submitted that meanwhile the names of the private opposite parties were removed from revenue record and that later on the said land was sold by the private opposite parties to some other person and the amount of complainant was misappropriated. Learned Magistrate has considered facts of the matter and passed impugned summoning order dated 02.08.2022. The applicant has preferred a revision against that order, which was dismissed by a reasoned order dated 25.01.2024. As stated above, once the revision is dismissed against the order of magistrate, interference under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. can only be made in extraordinary circumstances or in case of patent illegality or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. In the instant matter, no such case is made out. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and thus liable to be dismissed. 13. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 28.11.2024 S Rawat
Arguments
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that impugned orders are against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. The applicant has lodged a complaint against opposite party no.2 to 7 making several allegations. After hearing, accused Revati Prasad, Chandrabhan, Bhagwant @ Bhagwan Singh and Om Prakash were summoned for offence under Sections - 147, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. vide impugned order dated 02.08.2022. In the disputed agreement to sell, the opposite party no.6 Dharmendra and opposite party no.7 Smt. Draupadi were party and they were impleaded as accused in the complaint but they were not summoned. Further, there were allegations in the complaint regarding cheating but the accused persons were not summoned under Section - 420 I.P.C.. Being aggrieved, applicant has preferred a revision against summoning order dated 02.08.2022 but the revision has also been dismissed by the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge / Special Judge vide impugned order dated 25.01.2024. It was