In Deepti aliasArati Rai v. Akhil Rai Ors

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that both the parties are cousin and there was some dispute over partition between them. No such incident has taken place, as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has not sustained any injury. There are contradictions in the statement of complainant and statements of witnesses. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in view of the statement of complainant, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., as well as in the statements of witnesses, recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case is made out against the applicants.It was also stated that the revision against summoning order has already been dismissed by the Session Court.

5. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.

6. At the outset it may be mentioned that by impugned order dated 20.05.2023 applicants have been summoned to face the trial for the aforesaid offences. The applicants have preferred a criminal revision against aforesaid order dated

20.05.2023, which has been dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, vide impugned order dated 16.05.2024. 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 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. On this 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. 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. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, in the instant case it may be seen that the complainant has inter-alia made allegations in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. that on 30.06.2022 applicant no.1 has tried to take possession over his property and he has demolished his wall and his gate was also damaged. Thereafter all the applicants have assaulted him. The version of complainant is supported by the witnesses, examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate has summoned the applicants considering all attending facts. Similarly the revisional court has considered the entire facts and law and dismissed the revision. No patent illegality or perversity could be shown in the impugned orders. As criminal revision against the summoning order dated 20.05.2023 has already been dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated 16.05.2024, in such situation the interference under Section 482 CrPC can only be made when there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the court or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice. Applying the principles set out in the judgments referred above to the case on hand, this Court is of the view that there is no compelling circumstance or exceptional circumstance warranting invocation of section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court. In view of the aforesaid, the prayer as made above is hereby refused.

12. However, it is directed that in case applicants move an application for discharge before the trial court concerned within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. For a period of three weeks from today and in case, such an application is moved within the aforesaid period, till the disposal of such application, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants, provided applicants co-operate in early disposal of the discharge application.

13. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of finally in above terms. Order Date :- 3.1.2025 RKM

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that both the parties are cousin and there was some dispute over partition between them. No such incident has taken place, as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has not sustained any injury. There are contradictions in the statement of complainant and statements of witnesses. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in view of the statement of complainant, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., as well as in the statements of witnesses, recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case is made out against the applicants.It was also stated that the revision against summoning order has already been dismissed by the Session Court.

5. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.

6. At the outset it may be mentioned that by impugned order dated 20.05.2023 applicants have been summoned to face the trial for the aforesaid offences. The applicants have preferred a criminal revision against aforesaid order dated

20.05.2023, which has been dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, vide impugned order dated 16.05.2024. 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 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. On this 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. 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. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, in the instant case it may be seen that the complainant has inter-alia made allegations in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. that on 30.06.2022 applicant no.1 has tried to take possession over his property and he has demolished his wall and his gate was also damaged. Thereafter all the applicants have assaulted him. The version of complainant is supported by the witnesses, examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate has summoned the applicants considering all attending facts. Similarly the revisional court has considered the entire facts and law and dismissed the revision. No patent illegality or perversity could be shown in the impugned orders. As criminal revision against the summoning order dated 20.05.2023 has already been dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated 16.05.2024, in such situation the interference under Section 482 CrPC can only be made when there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the court or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice. Applying the principles set out in the judgments referred above to the case on hand, this Court is of the view that there is no compelling circumstance or exceptional circumstance warranting invocation of section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court. In view of the aforesaid, the prayer as made above is hereby refused.

12. However, it is directed that in case applicants move an application for discharge before the trial court concerned within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. For a period of three weeks from today and in case, such an application is moved within the aforesaid period, till the disposal of such application, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants, provided applicants co-operate in early disposal of the discharge application.

13. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of finally in above terms. Order Date :- 3.1.2025 RKM