Imami Mansoori v. Shrinarayan and others), under Sections
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:194557 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23433 of 2024 Applicant :- Imami Mansoori Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Tiwari,Shubhendu Kumar 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 12.12.2023, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.4, Jhansi, in Complaint Case No.1707 of 2020 (7813 of 2021) (Imami Mansoori Vs.
Legal Reasoning
Shrinarayan and others), under Sections 120B, 468, 469, 471, 500 IPC, Police Station- Chirgaon, District- Jhansi. The order dated 05.04.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Jhansi in Criminal Revision No.300 of 2023, is also being impugned. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the complaint lodged by the applicant discloses several offences but the complaint was arbitrarily dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The applicant has preferred a criminal revision against order dated 12.12.2023 but the same has also been dismissed vide impugned order dated 05.04.2024 without considering facts and law. Learned counsel has referred contents of complaint and statement of complainant and submitted that a prima-facie case under Sections 109, 500, 506 IPC is made out and thus, 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 material 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 the complaint of applicant was dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2023 and revision against that order has already been dismissed vide impugned order dated 05.04.2024. 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 should not act as a second Revisional Court under the garb of exercising inherent powers. While exercising its inherent powers in such a matter it must be conscious of the fact that the Sessions Judge has declined to exercise his revisory power in the matter. 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 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 and would be justified under such circumstance to exercise inherent powers. While exercising its inherent powers in such a matter it must be conscious of the fact that the Sessions Judge has declined to exercise his revisory power in the matter. Section 482 Cr.P.C. saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice and it has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. 11. In the instant matter, it appears that applicant as well as opposite party nos.2 & 3 are teachers in the same school. The complainant has alleged in the complaint that the private opposite parties have threatened to get the degree of applicant cancelled and they have threatened him and made a false complaint to the University. The complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. It appears that the complainant has not produced any witness under Section 202 Cr.P.C., however several complaints made to various authorities, were produced. It is apparent from record that the learned Magistrate has considered entire facts and dismissed the complaint vide order dated 12.12.2023. In view of allegations made by the complainant, no prima-facie case is made out. The Revisional Court has also considered entire facts in correct perspective and revision was dismissed by a reasoned order. There is patent illegality in the matter and no abuse of the process of Court could be shown, so as to require any interference by invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Considering entire facts and position of law, as discussed above, no case for invoking powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out, therefore, this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed. 12. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 12.12.2024 SP/-