Virendra Singh and Others vs Addl. Sessions Judge and Others

K.N. Sinha, J.—The present application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed against the order dated 28.2.2003 (Annexure-7 to the application) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Ballia, in Revision No. 378 of 2002, Virendra Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.

The brief facts giving rise to this application are that opposite party No. 3 filed a complaint in the Court of Respondent No. 2. The statements of complainant and witnesses were recorded. The Magistrate took the cognizance and summoned the applicants as accused by order dated 20.8.2001. The applicants filed objection against the said summoning order, which was rejected by order dated 15.4.2002. The applicants then filed a revision against the said order which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 378 of 2002 and the said revision was also dismissed on 28.2.2003. Now the applicants have come up against the said orders.

I have heard learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A.

Learned A.G.A. raised a preliminary point that once the revision has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge, the application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. cannot be entertained. Learned Counsel for the applicants objected to it and submitted that there are a number of authorities which lay down that even in such circumstances the application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. is maintainable. In H. K. Rawal Chairman, Mussoorie National School, Srinagar Estate Mussoorie District Dehradoon and Ors. v. Nidhi Prakash and Anr. 1989 ACrR 313 (FB): 1989 JIC 540, which is a Full Bench decision of this Court, this matter came up for consideration. The Full Bench of this Court held that:

Similarly, the order of the Sessions Judge in revision in cases under Sections 125, 133/138 and 145, Cr. P.C. and against an order of discharge by the Magistrate cannot be interfered with by the High Court either in exercise of its revisional powers at the instance of the same party or suo motu or in the exercise of its inherent powers u/s 482, Cr. P.C. for there are also some of the orders of the Sessions Judge which determine the dispute between the parties. The order of the Sessions Judge in revision against a summoning order or an order framing charge are, however, different as it does not determine the dispute between the parties if it resulted in the abuse of the process of the Court and/or call for interference to secure the ends of justice, it can be interfered with by the High Court in the exercise of its inherent powers under. Section 482, Cr. P.C. as this is not barred u/s 397(3) and Section 399(3), Cr. P.C.

In Krishnan and another Vs. Krishnaveni and another, , it has been held as follows:

Ordinarily, when revision has been barred by Section 397(3) of the Code, a person-accused/complainant-cannot be allowed to take recourse to the revision to the High Court u/s 397(1) or under inherent powers of the High Court u/s 482 of the Code since it may amount to circumvention of the provisions of Section 397(3) or Section 397(2) of the Code. It is seen that the High Court has suo motu power u/s 401 and continuous supervisory jurisdiction u/s 483 of the Code. So, when the High Court on examination of the record finds that there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the Courts or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice or order passed or sentence imposed by the Magistrate requires correction, it is but the duty of the High Court to have it corrected at the inception lest grave miscarriage of justice would ensue. It is, therefore, to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process that the High Court is preserved with inherent power and would be justified, under such circumstances, to exercise the inherent power and in an appropriate case even revisional power u/s 397(1) read with Section 401 of the Code. As stated earlier, it may be exercised sparingly so as to avoid needless multiplicity of procedure, unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of proceedings. The object of criminal trial is to render public justice, to punish the criminal and to see that the trial is concluded expeditiously before the memory of the witness fades out. The recent trend is to delay the trial and threaten the witness or to win over the witness by promise or inducement. These mal-practices need to be curbed and public justice can be ensured only when trial is conducted expeditiously.

This authority has been followed in Prasanta Kumar Dey v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (2002) 9 SCC 630 ; Laxmi Bai Patel v. Shyam Kumar Patel 2002 (2) ACrR 1257 (SC): 2002 (44) ACC 1102 (SC) and Rajinder Prasad Vs. Bashir and Others,

In Laxmi Bai Patel''s case (supra), it has been held that:

The position is well-settled that in such a case power u/s 482, Cr. P.C. can be exercised by the High Court in rare cases and in exceptional circumstances where the Court finds that permitting the impugned order to remain undisturbed will amount to abuse of process of the Court and will result in failure of justice.

Thus, the conclusion which can be drawn, by going through above authorities is that once the revision of a party has been dismissed, if the revision by him is barred u/s 397(3), Cr. P.C., he cannot take recourse to the inherent powers of this Court but in rare cases where there is great miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the Court, the inherent power can be invoked.

As per the facts of this case, the brother of the applicants had lodged F.I.R. against opposite party No. 3 and others and as a counter blast, the present complaint has come up. I have perused the order of the revisional court which shows that the Magistrate summoned the accused considering the statement of complainant examined under Sections 200, Cr. P.C. and 202, Cr. P.C. The Magistrate also considered the injury report. There is nothing on record to even suggest that the summoning order has in any way resulted in the miscarriage of justice. The order is based on consideration of the prima facie evidence as required u/s 204, Cr. P.C.

The revisional court considered the matter in the right perspective. The impugned order does not show any abuse of the process of the Court, hence power u/s 482, Cr. P.C. cannot be invoked.

The application is therefore, devoid of any force and is hereby dismissed.