Smt. C.V. Kushala A. Warrier vs Raj Kumar

Mehtab S. Gill, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashing of Order of the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Faridabad dated 26-3-2002 and Order dated 22-4-2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad in this revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner should be stayed till the civil litigation is not concluded. He has further stated that a major amount has been paid back to the respondent and the petitioner has got receipts to this effect though these receipts have been challenged by the complainant. They are under scrutiny of the trial Court on the civil side.

I have perused the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad dated 22-4-2003 and order of the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class dated 26-3-2002. Civil litigation is pending between the parties for recovery of the amount and criminal litigation u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is also pending. Both these remedies are independent remedies. One is for the punishment of the petitioner u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as the cheques have not been honoured. The other remedy is for recovery. Evidence is being led and the trial Court has not come to any final decisions in both the cases.

Learned counsel has drawn my attention to a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Krishnan and another Vs. Krishnaveni and another, , wherein Hon''ble the Supreme Court has held that the inherent power of the High Court is available u/s 482 of the Code after dismissal of a second revision by the Sessions Court. The Hon''ble Court has held that such inherent power must be exercised sparingly, so as to avoid needless multiplicity of procedure and unnecessary delay in the trial. It has further been held that though second revision before the High Court under Sub-section (1) of Section 397 is prohibited by Sub-section (3), the High Court can interfere u/s 482 and Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or in cases where there is miscarriage of justice.

In Deepti alias Arati Rai Vs. Akhil Rai and Others, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that a second revision u/s 397(3) is barred and second revision after dismissal of the first one by the Sessions Court is not maintainable. Inherent power cannot be utilised for exercising powers expressly barred by the Code.

I have perused both the orders. There is no miscarriage of justice. Petition is dismissed.