Veerbhan Gupta and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

O.P. Garg, J.—Heard Sri S.P.S. Raghav, learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.

The applicants have been summoned on the complaint of opposite party No. 2 in Crime Case No. 29 of 1995 under Sections 420/384/506/465/467/468/471/166/167/120B and 218. I.P.C. Police Station Hathras Gate, District Aligarh, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh. The applicants filed an objection/representation against the summoning order. This objection too has been dismissed. The applicants thereafter filed a revision application before the learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh. The revision was ultimately decided by II Ird Sessions Judge, Aligarh by order dated 7.4.1997. The revision application was dismissed.

In this application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, it is prayed that the complaint be quashed as it does not disclose any offence against the applicants. It was urged that the dispute raised between the parties is of civil nature.

After having perused the summoning order and the order passed on the application for recalling the summoning order, as well as order passed by revisional court, I find that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the applicants for the offences for which they have been summoned.

The learned A.G.A. pointed out that since the applicants have availed of the opportunity of filing revision application and have failed, the present application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure is not, at all, maintainable. Learned Counsel for the applicant pointed out that there is no absolute bar in filing application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure in spite of the fact that a revision application filed by the applicants has been dismissed. In support of this contention, he placed reliance in a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in H.K. Rawal v. Nidhi Prakash 1989 UPCRR 255 and; Krishnan and another Vs. Krishnaveni and another, .

I have perused both the aforesaid rulings and find that ordinarily when a revision is barred by Section 397(3) of the Code, a person accused cannot be allowed to take recourse to the revision to High Court u/s 397(1) or under inherent powers of this Court u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, since it may amount to circumvention of the provisions of Section 397(3) or 397(2) of the Code. In very exceptional and sparing circumstances, the inherent powers can be exercised to prevent the failure or miscarriage of justice.

There is a plethora of rulings, namely, K. Satwant Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, ; Madhu Limaye Vs. The State of Maharashtra, ; V.C. Shukla Vs. State through C.B.I., ; Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Others, ; Rajan Kumar Manchanda v. State 1980 ACC 54 (SC); Simirikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee Chhai Mukherjee (1990) 2 SCC 437 ; Dharampal and others Vs. Smt. Ramshri and others, ; Ganesh Narain Hagela v. S. Bangarappa AIR 1995 (SCW) 2364 andDeepti alias Arti Rani v. Akhil Rai 1995 CriLJ 695, the gammut of which is that once revisional power has been exercised on the application of the accused-applicants, recourse to second revision by exercising power u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be taken. In H.K. Rawal''s case (supra) the Full Bench has observed as follows:

...that where an application u/s 397, Code of Criminal Procedure filed by any party in the Court of Sessions is decided against him it is open to that party to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure only if the order of the Sessions Judges has resulted in the abuse of the process of the court and/or calls for interference to secure the ends of justice as the bar under Sections 397(3) and 399(3), Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable to the exercise of the inherent powers by the High Court u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure in such a case. If on the other hand the order of the Sessions Judge has determined the dispute between the parties as indicated in our Judgment, it cannot be interfered with by the High Court in revision at the instance of the same party or suo motu or in the exercise of its inherent powers u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the bar under Sections 397(3) and 399(3), Code of Criminal Procedure

On scrutiny of facts of the present case, I find that there are no exceptional or compelling circumstances to invoke inherent powers of this Court, particularly when the applicants have availed of the remedy of revision before the Sessions Judge.

No interference is warranted in the matter, and the application is accordingly dismissed.