Tanuj vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another

(1) The present criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 11.09.2017 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas in Criminal Revision No.36/2017 by which the learned Additional Judge, confirmed the order dated 17.07.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate First class, Dewas in Criminal Case No.1455/2016 whereby the charges under Section 498-A, 406, 294, 506 Part-2 of I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been framed against the applicant.

(2). Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Darshini Dev made a written complaint to the Police Station Civil Lines, Dewas alleging that she was married with the applicant Tanuj on 10.12.2013. After the marriage she visited total 4-5 times in her matrimonial house. During the visit, the applicant and her family members used to harass her and kept all ornaments and articles given in the dowry with them. When she made demand for returning the aforesaid, then they abused her with filthy language and threatened her for dire consequences. On the basis of written complaint, offence under Section 498-A, 406, 294, 506 Part-2 of I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been registered against the applicant bearing crime No.26/2016 at police station Civil Lines, Dewas and after due investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the court of Judicial Magistrate First, Class, Dewas.

(3). From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Devas vide order dated 17.07.2017 has framed charges under Section 498-A, 406, 294, 506 Part-2 of I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has against the applicant. Being aggrieved by the said order criminal revision No. 36/2017 has been preferred before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas, which also came to be dismissed.

(4) 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 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."

(5). Similarly, in the decision rendered in the case of Deepti @ Arati R ai v. Akhil Rai, Judgement Today 1995 (7) S.C.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, 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.

(6). The position becomes clear. This is a second revision petition filed 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.

(7). In view of the aforesaid, 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.

(8). Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned court for information and necessary compliance.