Mukhtiar Singh vs Sarwan Singh and another

Ujagar Singh, J.—It is not disputed that a complaint u/s 182, Cr. P.C. by a private individual is not maintainable. The only objection is that powers u/s 482 of the Code cannot be exercised, because sub-section (3) of section 397 thereof bars a second revision and therefore, this petition should be dismissed, as not maintainable. I have heard arguments and I express my inability to succumb to these arguments, merely because second revision is not competent. Section 482 starts with the word "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code" and this should be sufficient to show in that all the provisions in the Code cannot debar this Court from interfering in an order of the lower courts where it amounts to an abuse of the process. Taking the other way round, second revision is barred and the petitioner is left with no remedy whatsoever, except to invoke the inherent powers given to this Court by section 482 which seeks to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice Shri Singh has nothing to say that after going through the whole procedure, the ultimate order is to be that this complaint is not maintainable. This Court cannot shut its eyes to this patent illegality and allow the lower Court to waste its time when the result is going to be dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it is barred. It, rather, becomes necessary or rather, the duty of the Court to interfere in such cases where there is no dispute on the maintainability of the complaint. In my view, this complaint is not maintainable at all in view of the provisions of section 195 of the Code. I, therefore, accept this petition and dismiss the complaint as not maintainable.