Sanjay vs Manjula And Ors.

The applicant has preferred the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for assailing the order dated 22/06/2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dharampuri, District-Dhar in Criminal Revision No. 3/2019, whereby order dated 19/03/2019 passed in Complaint Case No. 0/2017 (Sanjay Vs. Smt. Manjula & Ors.) by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharampuri, District-Dhar refused to take cognizance on the private complaint filed by the applicant has been affirmed.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the applicant made a complaint against the respondents regarding commission of offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 420 and 506 of the IPC before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharampuri District-Dhar. The statement of the applicant/complainant as well as other witnesses called by the complainant were recorded to enable the Magistrate for taking cognizance on the complaint. After recording the statement, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, vide impugned order dated 19/03/2019 dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. filed against the respondents upon finding that prima facie no case for the alleged offence is made out against them.

Feeling aggrieved by such order of dismissal of the complaint by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharampuri, District-Dhar, the applicant has filed Criminal Revision No. 3/2019 and the said application has been dismissed on the ground that prima facie no alleged offence is made out against the respondents, therefore, learned Magistrate has not committed any error in dismissing the complaint. This order is a subject matter of challenge before this Court in the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the courts' below have committed error in holding that even believing the statement of the complainant as well as his witnesses no alleged offence is made out against the respondents. Hence, he prayed for quashment of impugned order passed by the courts below.

Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

From the perusal of impugned orders, it appears that applicant/complainant claimed that he has advanced loan of Rs.36,000/- to the respondents on the promise that they will return the same within a period of seven days of sanctioning their loan from Canara Bank. On 02/08/2017 on telephone, applicant made demand of loan from the respondents then they came to applicant's shop, abused and assaulted him and threatened the applicant that they would falsely implicate him in the case of rape. However, the applicant has not filed any documents regarding advancement of loan amount and without there being any foundation of documentary evidence, it cannot be suffice to believed his statement.

The complainant stated that he informed the incident to SHO, Dhamnod but neither he take any action against the respondents nor lodged the FIR, however, the applicant did not sent any written complaint to Superintendent of Police, Dhar about the alleged incident and non action of SHO, Dhamnod upon his complaint. Looking to the allegation made in the complaint, this Court is of the view that the transaction taken place between the parties is of a civil nature and the applicant has lodged the private complaint for pressurising the respondents for payment of the loan amount, therefore, the courts below have rightly refused to take cognizance against the respondents on the basis of complaint filed by the applicant.

The order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharmpuri was challenged before the Sessions Court by filing Criminal Revision and when the said revision petition was dismissed by the Sessions Court, then applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., before this Court.

Under Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a second revision petition after the first had been dismissed is not maintainable with the High Court. More often than once it has been observed that inherent powers of the Court should not be utilised. Reference to some of the precedents in this regard would be in the fitness of things. In the case of Dharampal v. Smt. Rameshri, 1993 (1) RCR (Crl.) 696 : (1993) 1 SCC 435 : AIR 1993 SC 1361, the Apex Court held as under:-

"......The Sessions Judge had dismissed the said application on 14th May, 1979. Section 397(3) bars a second revision application by the same party. It is now well settled that the inherent powers under S. 482 of the Code cannot be utilised 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 Ist respondent. On this short ground itself, the impugned order of the High Court can be set aside."

Similarly, in the decision rendered in the case of Deepti @ Arati Rai v. Akhil Rai, Judgement Today 1995 (7) Supreme Court 175 the Supreme Court held that once first revision petition has been dismissed, the second revision petition would not be maintainable and further that inherent powers cannot be ordinarily utilised when the second revision is expressly barred. In the case of Krishnan v. Krishnaveni, 1995 (3) RCR (Crl.) 638 : (1997) 4 SCC 241 : AIR 1997 SC 987 , similar question had come up for hearing. It was held that inherent powers could only be utilised if there is failure of justice. In those cases, the High Court may interfere but reiterated that second revision is not maintainable after the dismissal of the first revision petition.

The position becomes clear. This is a second revision petition filed by way of petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. after the dismissal of the first revision petition. It must be held to be not maintainable and, in fact, specifically barred under sub-section (3) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Taking this view of the matter, it is not a fit case to exercise the powers vested under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., as there is no abuse of the process of the Court nor the interest of justice so require. Consequently, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary compliance.