Pritam Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 8809 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Pritam Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 9 April, 2025

Author: Raj Beer Singh

Bench: Raj Beer Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51443
 
Court No. - 71
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10052 of 2025
 
Applicant :- Pritam Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Gopal,Devashish Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred as 'BNSS') has been preferred against the order dated 15.10.2024, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 9, Agra, in Complaint Case No. 631 of 2024, Police Station New Agra, District Agra, whereby the complaint filed by the applicant has been dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The order dated 19.02.2025, passed by learned Special Judge (D.A.A.)/A.S.J., Court No. 3, Agra, in criminal revision No. 916/2024, is also being impugned, whereby the revision filed by the applicant against the order dated 15.10.2024 was dismissed.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is brother-in-law of opposite party No. 2 and that husband of opposite party No. 2 has since passed away. The opposite party No. 2 has lodged false cases against the applicant and she is continuously harassing the applicant. The complaint filed by the applicant has been dismissed by learned Magistrate in a arbitrary manner without appreciating the evidence on record. In view of the statements of complainant (applicant herein), recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. and of witnesses, recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C., a prima facie is made out against opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 but despite that the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 15.10.2024. The applicant has preferred a criminal revision against the order dated 15.10.2024, which has been dismissed by learned Special Judge (D.A.A.)/A.S.J., Court No. 3, Agra, vide impugned order dated 19.02.2025. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that both the impugned orders are against facts and law ans thus, liable to be set aside.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there is no material illegality or perversity in the impugned orders.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. At the outset it may be mentioned that by impugned order dated 15.10.2024 the complaint of applicant was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the applicant has preferred a criminal revision against aforesaid order dated 15.10.2024, which has been dismissed by learned Special Judge (D.A.A.)/A.S.J., Court No. 3, Agra, vide impugned order dated 19.02.2025. It is correct that availing of the remedy of the revision before the Sessions Judge under Section 440 BNSS does not bar a person from invoking the power of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS but it is equally true that the High Court should not act as a second Revisional Court under the garb of exercising inherent powers.

7. In Deepti aliasArati Rai v. Akhil Rai & Ors, (1995) 5 SCC 751, the Apex Court held that second revision application, after dismissal of the first one by sessions court is not maintainable and that inherent power under Section 482 of the Code cannot be utilized for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. In case of Laxmi Bai Patel Vs. Shyam Kumar Patel; 2002 0 Supreme (SC) 283, the Court held:

"3. Before taking up the merits of the case, it would be proper to consider the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482Cr.P.C. of the High Court in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a case where the sessions court exercising revisional power under Section 397(3)Cr.P.C. has dismissed the revision petition by the aggrieved party, a second revision petition about acceptance of the same party is barred. The position is well- settled that in such a case power under Section 482Cr.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."

8. Similarly, in the case of Dharampal & Ors. v. Ramshri; 1993 (1) SCC 435, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that-

" .... Section 397(3) bars a second revision application by the same party. It is now well-settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot be utilized 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 Respondent 1. On this short ground itself, the impugned order of the High Court can be set aside."

9. In the case of Rajathi Vs. C.Ganesan; 1999 SCC (Cri) 1118, the Court held as follows:-

"In Krishnan v. Krishnaveni(1997 (4) SCC 241 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 544), this Court explained the scope and power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. The question before the Court was if in view of the bar of second revision under sub-section (3) of Section 397 of the Code was prohibited, whether inherent power of the High Court is still available under Section 482 of the Code. 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 under Section 397(1) or under inherent powers of the High Court under Section 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 under Section 401 and continuous supervisory jurisdiction under Section 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 under Section 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.''

10. Thus, it is clear that availing of remedy of revision before Sessions Judge under section 440 BNSS does not bar a person from invoking power of High Court under Section 528 BNSS but High Court should not act as a second Revisional Court under garb of exercising inherent powers. In such matters High Court can invoke inherent powers only when on examination of record it finds that there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of the Court or the required statutory procedure has not been followed with or there is failure of justice. It is therefore to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process that High Court is preserved with inherent powers and would be justified under such circumstance to exercise inherent powers.

11. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, in the instant case it may be seen that in his statement under section 200 Cr.P.C., the applicant has made only general and vague allegation that the opposite party No. 2 was having illicit relations with one Sunil and they have subjected his brother to slow poison and he has passed away and that the applicant has lodged a case under section 302 IPC and that the opposite party No. 2 has lodged false cases against the applicant. It is apparent that the allegations made by the applicant are quite vague and no case is made out against opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. Learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint by considering all relevant facts. Learned revisional court has also considered the facts of the matter and position of law in correct perspective and revision was dismissed. No patent illegality or perversity could be shown in the impugned orders. As criminal revision against aforesaid order dated 15.10.2024, has already been dismissed, in such situation the interference under Section 528 BNSS can only be made in case when 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. In the instant matter no such case is made out. Applying the principles set out in the judgments referred above to the case on hand, this Court is of the view that no case for warranting invocation of powers under section 528 BNSS is made out. Therefore, this application under section 528 BNSS deserves to be dismissed.

12. The application u/s 528 BNSS is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 9.4.2025

Anand