The Delhi High Court expounded that filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) in the guise of a second revision petition is not maintainable.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Sharma clarified that once a person has already chosen to file a revision, either before the High Court or the Sessions Court, they are precluded from approaching the other court for the same matter.
Brief Facts:
In 2001, the Petitioner purchased an Ashok Leyland Diesel Bus chassis from M/s. Pearey Lai & Sons (Ep.) Ltd.
In December 2002, Petitioner approached Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. to convert the bus into a CNG vehicle. The officials of the company asked him to leave the vehicle with them and assured him that they would fit the CNG kit. However, they delayed the fitting for about 20 days, and Petitioner decided to arrange it on his own.
Instead of returning the bus, the officials of Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. handed Petitioner a letter stating that the vehicle had been surrendered due to an overdue amount of Rs. 2,641. Gupta paid Rs. 17,500 for DTC Bus Stand Fee and an additional Rs. 35,000 with the hope of getting his bus back. In February 2003, the officials of Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. demanded Rs. 1,19,426 to return the vehicle, which Gupta paid but did not receive his bus. The Petitioner's bus was insured, but the Accused persons withheld it and did not return it.
As a result of the ordeal, Petitioner suffered a cardiac attack and incurred medical expenses of Rs. 2,00,000. Later, Petitioner discovered that the vehicle had been sold by Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. in July 2003.
The Petitioner filed a complaint with the police and the Delhi Transport Authority, alleging that the Accused persons had misappropriated his vehicle, filed a false complaint against him, and committed offences such as extortion, criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and conspiracy.
A Cancellation Report was filed before the ACMM which was accepted.
Dissatisfied with the ACMM's order, the Petitioner filed a revision petition before the Court of Additional Session Judge.
The Additional Session Judge dismissed the Petitioner's revision petition and upheld the validity of the ACMM's order in 2011. Hence, the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
It was contended that both the Additional Sessions Judge and the ACCM had made errors in failing to recognize that the Investigating Officer had provided incorrect statements in the cancellation report.
Moreover, it was further contended that the learned Lower Courts had overlooked the fact that the bus was sold without the petitioner's knowledge or consent for a meagre sum of Rs. 1,70,000/-, despite being only 2 years old and having an original cost of Rs. 12,10,745/-.
Contentions of the Respondents:
It was argued that the Petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC aimed to challenge two consecutive findings of the lower courts. It wascontended that the inherent powers granted under Section 482 of the CrPC could not be utilised to bypass the statutory restriction imposed by Section 397(3) of the CrPC.
Observations of the Court:
The Court propounded that filing a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC in the guise of a second revision petition is not maintainable. It was clarified that a person who has already chosen to file a revision either before the High Court or the Sessions Court is precluded from approaching the other court. However, the High Court may entertain a revision if the Sessions Judge has reversed the order of the lower court, but this is not an automatic right for every aggrieved party.
It was also opined that although Section 482 of the CrPC allows the High Court to exercise its power to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, the Court would generally discourage filing a second revision petition when the petitioner has already availed the remedy of the first revision in the Sessions Court.
Based on the above, the High Court found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
The decision of the Court:
The Delhi High Court upheld the impugned judgement and therefore, dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Kapoor Chand Gupta v State & Ors
Case No.: Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2702 of 2011
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Sharma
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Mr. Ranjeet Singh and Mr. Kailash Pandey
Advocates for Respondents: Advs. Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP, Mr. K.N. Jayasankar and Ms. Beena Nair
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :