Babulal @ Pappu vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 4672 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Babulal @ Pappu vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 5 February, 2025

Author: Raj Beer Singh

Bench: Raj Beer Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:16052
 
Court No. - 73
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24083 of 2024
 
Applicant :- Babulal @ Pappu
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. Om Prakash Yadav
 
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 u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against order dated 12.04.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C./ A.C.J.M., Azamgarh in Case No.342 of 2021 (Babu Lal @ Pappu Vs. Arjun Sonker and others), whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against opposite party no.2 to 6 has been rejected. The order dated 14.05.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Azamgarh in Criminal Revision No.51 of 2023 is also being impugned, whereby the revision against order dated 12.04.2022 has been dismissed.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the impugned orders are against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. The applicant has preferred a writ petition before this Court passed vide Writ Petition No.34142 of 2015 whereby order dated 10.02.2017, the Division Bench of this Court has directed the Superintendent of Police for allowing construction of the gate/ door of the applicant. The opposite party no.2 has filed a false affidavit in those proceedings stating that he is owner of land of Gata No.280 and 281 situated at Shivli and on the basis of that false information, he tried to mislead the court and thus, a case of forgery and producing false evidence is made out. It was submitted that the learned Magistrate has not considered the facts of the matter and position of law and dismissed the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Similarly, the revision against order dated 12.04.2022 has also been dismissed in an arbitrary manner. Learned counsel has referred case of Iqbal Singh Narang and others Vs. Veeran Narang (2012) 2 SCC 60 and submitted that impugned complaint is not barred by the provisions of Section 195/340 Cr.P.C.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders and that the application of the applicant has rightly been rejected and thus, no case for interference is made out.

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

6. At the outset it may be mentioned that by impugned order dated 12.04.2022 the application of applicant was dismissed and thereafter, the applicant has preferred a criminal revision against aforesaid order dated 12.04.2022, which has been dismissed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 14.05.2024. 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.

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. Onthis 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 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. 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. Section 482 Cr.P.C. saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice and it has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.

11. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, in the instant matter perusal of record shows that the main allegation of applicant is that he has filed Writ Petition before this Court, wherein vide order dated 10.02.2017 a direction was made to the Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh regarding construction of gate/ door of the applicant but later on the opposite party no.2 has filed an application for recall by submitting a false affidavit, wherein a false averment was made that the land of the Gata No.280 and 281 belongs to opposite party no2. It is apparent that even if any case is made out, the proceedings in such matter can only be initiated in accordance with the provisions under Section 340, read with Section 195 Cr.P.C. The case relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is entirely on different facts and footing. No material illegality or perversity could be shown in the impugned orders. As stated earlier, once the order dated 12.04.2022 passed by learned A.C.J.M. has been upheld by the Session Court in revision, 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.

12. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

Order Date :- 5.2.2025

RKM