Yandrapu Venkataramana vs Yandrapu Surya Prabhavathi and Another

This petition is filed to quash the order passed by the II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry in Cr.M.P. No. 2890/93 in M.C. No. 30/91 and also the order passed by the I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, in Cri.R.P. No. 33/1995, confirming the order of the trial Court.

The 1st respondent herein filed M.C. No. 30/91 on the file of the II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmindry, for maintenance u/s 125(1), Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. That petition was allowed granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- p.m. The petitioner herein filed Cr.M.P. No. 2890/93 to cancel the ex parte order dated 20-4-1994 in M.C. No. 30/91 but the same was dismissed on 11-11-1994. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein had preferred criminal revision petition No. 33/1995 on the file of the I Addl. District and Session Judge, Rajahmindry. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the merits of the case dismissed the revision.

Aggrieved by the said order in the revision, this petition u/s 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the order of the lower Court is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents herein submitted that by virtue of Section 399(3), Cr.P.C. no further proceedings by way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court. Therefore, the petitioner herein having failed in the revision before the Sessions Judge, cannot file this proceeding u/s 482, Cr.P.C.

In support of his contention, he relied upon the Judgments in Dharampal and others Vs. Smt. Ramshri and others, and Deepti alias Arati Rai Vs. Akhil Rai and Others, .

I see considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner herein had failed in the revision filed by him before the Sessions Court. Ordinarily, no further proceedings are maintainable by virtue of the above mentioned judgments. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice a Judgment of my learned brother Justice V. Rajagopala Reddy reported in D. Laskhamana Rao v. E. Kamala Bai (1996) 1 ALT 29. In this case he considered the scope of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Narayan Hegde Vs. S. Bangarappa and Others, . In that case the Supreme Court held (Para 12 of Cri LJ) :

"While it is true that availing of the remedy of the revision to the Sessions Jades u/s 399 does not bar a person from invoking the power of the High Court u/s 482, it is equally true that the High Court should not act as a Second Revisional Court under the garb of exercising its inherent power. While exercising its inherent powers in such a matter it must be conscious of the fact that the learned Sessions Judge has declined to exercise his revisory power in the matter. The High Court should interfere only where it is satisfied that if the complaint is allowed to be proceeded with, it would amount to abuse of process of Court or that the interests of Justice otherwise call for quashing of the charges."

Therefore, there cannot be any doubt in respect of the prohibition to file further revision against the revisional orders of the Sessions Judge. However, the High Court certainly, has power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to entertain proceedings when it finds that if the complaint is allowed to be proceeded with it would amount to abuse of process of Court or that the interest of justice otherwise call for quashing of the charges.

My learned brother Justice Vada Rajgopala Reddy with whom I entirely agree also held that the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised u/s 482, Cr.P.C. to correct any abuse of the process of Court. It is necessary to see in a given case whether the provisions u/s 482, Cr.P. are invoked to circumvent the provisions of Sections 397(2) or 399(3), Cr.P.C. and to convert this Court as a Second Revisional Court.

In the case on hand, both the Courts considered the quantum to be granted. They have given certain amounts to the respondent. The present revision is certainly an attempt to convert this Court as a Secondary Revisional Court. Such attempt cannot be allowed to fructify. There is no abuse of process of Court. Therefore, this Court cannot interfere while exercising powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C.

There are no merits in the petition. Hence, the Petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.