Gautam Singh (Safaikarmi) vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 4650 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Gautam Singh (Safaikarmi) vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 February, 2025

Author: Raj Beer Singh

Bench: Raj Beer Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?
 
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:15907
 
Court No. - 73
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19185 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Gautam Singh (Safaikarmi)
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Qasim
 
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. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 27.09.2023, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Bulandshahr in Complaint Case No.341 of 2023 (Computer Case no.7939 of 2023) (Gautam Singh Vs. Amarjeet Singh), Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Bulandshahr, whereby the complaint filed by the applicant/complainant against opposite party no.2 has been dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The order dated 20.05.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No.4, Bulandshahr, in Criminal Revision No.479 of 2023 is also being impugned, whereby the revision against order dated 27.09.2023 has been dismissed.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that impugned orders are against facts and law and thus liable to be set aside. The applicant was working as Safaikarmi in Village Panchayat Saidpur, District Bulandshahar but later on he was suspended. His suspension was recalled vide order dated 11.09.2009 and later he has fallen ill. The salary arrears and bonus etc. of applicant were not paid by the opposite party no.2, who is working as District Panchayat Adhikari and the applicant was illegally terminated from services. It was stated that in reply to the notice issued to the applicant, he has sent his reply but the opposite party has mentioned that applicant has sent blank papers in the envelope. This version of opposite party no.2 can not be believed.

4. It is further submitted that initially the complaint of applicant was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 06.03.2021. The applicant has preferred a revision against that order, which was allowed by Session Court vide order dated 29.06.2022 and matter was remanded back to the Court of Magistrate. However learned Judicial Magistrate has again dismissed the complaint of applicant under Section 203 Cr.P.C. vide impugned order dated 27.09.2023. The applicant has filed a criminal revision against that order but revision has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 20.05.2024. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted a prima-facie is made out against applicant and thus impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that applicant had been continuously absent from his service for a period of about seven years and accordingly his services were terminated in accordance with law. Referring to complaint and statement of complainant, it was submitted that no case is made out against opposite party no.2. It is further submitted that the order dated 27.09.2023 has already been upheld by the Revisional Court and now interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be made only in extraordinary situation but in this matter, no such case is made out.

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

7. At the outset it may be mentioned that by impugned order dated 27.09.2023 the complaint of applicant was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the applicant has preferred a criminal revision, which has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No.4, Bulandshahr, vide impugned order dated 20.05.2024. It is correct that availing of the remedy of the revision before the Sessions Judge under Section 399 CrPC does not bar a person from invoking the power of the High Court under Section 482 but it is equally true that the High Court should not act as a second Revisional Court under the garb of exercising inherent powers. While exercising its inherent powers in such a matter it must be conscious of the fact that the Sessions Judge has declined to exercise his revisory power in the matter.

8. 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."

9. 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. Onthis short ground itself, the impugned order of the High Court can be set aside."

10. 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.''

11. Thus, it is clear that availing of remedy of revision before Sessions Judge under section 399 Cr.P.C. does not bar a person from invoking power of High Court under Section 482Cr.P.C. but High Court should not act as a second Revisional Court under garb of exercising inherent powers. While exercising inherent powers in such a matter, the High Court can interfere only where it is satisfied that if complaint is allowed to be proceeded with, it would amount to abuse of the process of Court or that interest of justice otherwise call for quashing of the charges. When High Court on examination of record 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 the duty of High Court to have corrected it at the inception lest grave miscarriage of justice would ensue. 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.

12. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, in the instant case perusal of record shows that applicant was working as Safaikarmi in aforesaid Village Gram Panchayat and the main grievance of applicant is that he was arbitrarily terminated and that his dues, including salary arrears and bonus etc. were not paid and that he was threatened by the opposite party no.2. It may be seen that in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant has made allegation that on 06.12.2017 he was served notice by the opposite party no.2 regarding termination of his services and he was terminated on the basis of false facts and that his arrears were not paid and that the opposite party no.2 has made demand for bribery. It is apparent that only vague allegations have been levelled by the complainant/applicant that a demand for bribery was made and his arrears were not paid. If he has grievance that he was terminated on the basis of false facts or against law, he has remedy to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. He may also initiate appropriate proceedings for his alleged arrears. No case for summoning of the opposite party no.2 for criminal offence is made out. As stated above, the order passed by learned Magistrate under Section 203 Cr.P.C. has already been upheld by the revisional court and in such situation the interference under Section 482 CrPC 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. Applying the principles set out in the judgments referred above to the case on hand, this Court is of the view that there is no compelling circumstance or exceptional circumstance warranting invocation of section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court. Therefore, this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed.

13. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 5.2.2025

'SP'/-