Sanjeev And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 4731 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Sanjeev And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 February, 2025

Author: Raj Beer Singh

Bench: Raj Beer Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:17062
 
Court No. - 73
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23887 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Sanjeev And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Prasoon Tomar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinayak Mithal
 

 
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
 

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 18.03.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate/F.T.C., Court no.2, Bijnor in Complaint Case No.2152 of 2022 (Yogesh Vs. Sanjeev and others), under Section 307, 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC Police Station- Kotwali City, District- Bijnor. The order dated 09.05.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No.2, Bijnor in Criminal Revision No.216/2023 is also being impugned, whereby the revision against summoning order dated 18.03.2023 has been dismissed.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that impugned complaint has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 making false and baseless allegations. The dispute between the parties is regarding land and that on 13.12.2021 brother of applicant no.1, namely Neetu has lodged a complaint against the opposite party no.2, wherein he was summoned under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC and revision against that order was also dismissed. The impugned complaint has been lodged as a counterblast to said case. Learned Magistrate has not considered facts of the matter and position of law in correct perspective and committed error by summoning the applicants. Similarly, the revisional court has also not considered facts and law properly and revision was dismissed arbitrarily. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned orders are against facts and law and thus liable to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the application and submitted that there is evidence that on 19.10.2021 the applicants were breaking the gate of the property of opposite party no.2 and when opposite party no.2 along with his son and one Aman Kumar reached there, the applicants have abused and attacked them with tabal, lathi, sticks and resultantly son of complainant, namely, Ayush Kumar has sustained serious injuries. It was stated that the version of complaint is supported by the complainant in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Injured Ayush Kumar has also supported said version in his statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The version of complainant is further supported by medical examination report. It was pointed out that after incident, police was informed and proceedings under Section 151 Cr.P.C. were done but report of the opposite party no.2 was not lodged.

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

7. At the outset it may be mentioned that by impugned order dated 18.03.2023 the applicants were summoned for offence under Section 307, 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC and thereafter, the applicants have preferred a criminal revision against aforesaid order dated 18.03.2023, which has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No.2, Bijnor vide impugned order dated 09.05.2024. 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. 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. In exercising that jurisdiction the High Court can not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not.

12. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, it may be observed that in the instant matter there are allegations that on 19.10.2021 the applicants were breaking the gate of the property of opposite party no.2 and when opposite party no.2 along with his son and one Aman Kumar reached there, the applicants have abused and attacked them with 'tabal', lathi, sticks and resultantly son of complainant, namely, Ayush Kumar has sustained serious injuries. The complainant has supported that version in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Injured Ayush Kumar has also supported said version in his statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The version of complainant is further supported by medical examination report. It was shown that after the alleged incident, police was informed and proceedings under Section 151 Cr.P.C. were done but report of the opposite party no.2 was not lodged. Learned Magistrate has considered all relevant facts and summoned the applicants by a reasoned order dated 18.03.2023. Similarly, the revisional Court has also considered entire facts and position of law and revision was dismissed vide order dated 09.05.2024. No patent illegality or perversity could be shown in the impugned orders. As criminal revision against aforesaid order dated 18.03.2023, has already been dismissed, 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 :- 6.2.2025

'SP'/-