Ajay Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. and Another), is also being impugned, whereby the revision filed b
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:189863 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24357 of 2024 Applicant :- Ajay Kumar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, 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 08.03.2021, of Complaint Case No. 582 of 2018 (Rani Vs. Ajay Kumar and Others), under Sections - 323, 504, 506, 452, 392 I.P.C., Police Station - Dhampur, District - Bijnor, pending before the concerned Court. The order dated 03.07.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, POCSO Act, Bijnor in Criminal Revision No. 475 of 2023 (Ajay Kumar and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another), is also being impugned, whereby the revision filed by the applicant was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that impugned complaint has been lodged making false and baseless allegations.
Legal Reasoning
There is dispute between the parties on the issue of drainage. The allegation of assault on the complainant and her family members are wholly false. There is no medical examination report of the
Legal Reasoning
complainant or any other person. Learned counsel has referred the provisions of Section - 390, 392 I.P.C. and submitted that no offence under Section - 392 I.P.C. is made out. The summoning order has been passed in a routine manner without considering the material on record. It is submitted that revisional court has also not considered facts and law and dismissed the revision. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in the impugned complaint, there are clear allegations that applicants have trespassed into the house of complainant and hurling abuses they have assaulted the complainant and her family members and applicant no.1 Ajay Kumar has forcibly snatched her ear-rings. Learned A.G.A. has pointed out that from the impugned order dated 03.07.2024, passed by the revisional court, it is clear that in the alleged incident, one Rakhi, Bholi and Kusum have sustained injuries and their medical examination reports were produced before the revisional court. It was submitted that a prima facie case is made out against applicants. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. At this stage, it would be pertinent to mention that applicants were summoned by impugned order dated 08.03.2021 and criminal revision against that order has already been dismissed by the session court. 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. 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 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 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. 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. 11. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, in the instant matter there are allegations that all the applicants-accused have trespassed into the house of complainant and assaulted the complainant and her family members. The version of complainant is supported by the witnesses examined under Section - 202 Cr.P.C. As stated above, the revision against summoning order has already been dismissed and in such situation interference can be made only in case of patent illegality or abuse of the process of court or in any other extraordinary circumstances. 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. 12. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 4.12.2024 S Rawat