Dhupal Mahto and Others vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Jaya Roy, J.—The instant Criminal application u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 10.1.2005 passed by Sri Rajesh Kumar Vaish, VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Criminal Revision No. 94 / 2002 affirming the order dated 20.3.2002 passed by Sri Jagdeo Kumar Oraon, Executive Magistrate, Barhi in case No. 46/96 corresponding to T.R. No. 19 of 2002.

Brief facts of the instant case is that on a police report dated 22.7.96 forwarded to the court of Executive Magistrate, Barhi District Hazaribagh on which a proceeding u/s 144 Cr.P.C. was stated against both the parties in which state was also the first party and upon receiving notice the parties concerned appeared and filed their respective show cause and both the parties had claimed their possession upon the disputed land. The said proceeding was converted into a proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. on 28.9.96. and as such a fresh notice u/s 145 Cr.P.C. was also issued and served upon the parties to file their respective written statement, document if any and adduced evidence in respect their claim regarding the actual possession over the land in dispute. The Petitioners adopted their show cause filed earlier in the proceeding u/s 144 Cr.P.C. and in addition to it, additional written statements was also filed. The opposite party has also filed their written statements. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence and claim their possession over the land in dispute. The trial court after hearing all the parties at length and after considering oral and documentary evidence available on record, has come to the conclusion that the second party (first set) who is the opposite party Nos. 2 to 8 are in possession over the disputed land in question and directed the second party -second set (the present petitioner) not to disturb the peaceful possession of the first set. It has further observed that party aggrieved can go to the civil court.

That thereafter the present petitioner filed a revision in the court of Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh and the same was transferred for disposal to the Court of VIth Additional Sessions Judge Hazaribagh, against the aforesaid order which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 94 of 2002. After hearing both the parties and considering the materials, documentary evidence as well as oral evidence and the case laws refer by the parties, dismissed revision application of the petitioners and held"

I am of the view that the learned court below has rightly appreciated the evidence available on the record and has rightly declared that the second party is in possession and has rightly restrained the second party / revisionists not to go on the disputed land till an order by the competent authority in their favour.

The petitioners have filed this quashing application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. against the order passed in Criminal Revision No. 94 of 2002. Thus, it is very clear as no second revision is provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioners has availed the benefit of second revision in grab of 482 Cr.P.C. But it is well settled that the inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can not be invoked for doing some thing which has been specifically barred by the legislature.

The counsel of the petitioner referred a case Kailash Verma Vs. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation and Another, and submits that the High Court can entertain a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. when there is serious miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of the court.

In my view when the petitioners have already availed the scope of 397 Cr.P.C. i.e. revisional scope and both the court below after considering the case of the petitioners and considering the material available on record and evidence adduced by the parties, confirmed the possession of the first set -second party who are opposite party Nos. 2 to 8 in the present revision, it will not be proper to interfere in this case. The inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercise sparingly and such power shall not be utilized as a substitute for second revision. The inherent power is to be used only in cases when there is serious miscarriage of justice or where interference is absolutely necessary for securing the ends of justice.

I find there is no serious miscarriage of justice in both the orders of the courts below. Moreover, the trial court has already given an observation that the party aggrieved can go to the civil court.

Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, the quashing application is dismissed.