Gyanendra Pandey vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 5067 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Gyanendra Pandey vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 February, 2025

Author: Raj Beer Singh

Bench: Raj Beer Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21199
 
Court No. - 73
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30859 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Gyanendra Pandey
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Nath 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. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 24.08.2023, passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasya, Kushi Nagar, in Complaint Case No.1102 of 2023 (Manish Tiwari Vs. Gyanendra Pandey), Police Station- Ahirauli Bazar, District- Kushi Nagar. The order dated 29.07.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kushi Nagar in Criminal Revision No.132 of 2024, is also being impugned, whereby the revision against order dated 24.08.2023 has been dismissed.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case and no prima-facie case is made out against the applicant. The applicant has only published a news item regarding blockage of drainage by opposite party no.2 and thereafter said blockage was cleared. The impugned compliant has been filed making false and baseless allegations. The applicant has never made any demand from the complainant. Earlier, the complainant has made complaint to police, in which the allegations of complainant were not established. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima-facie case is made out.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in view of allegations made in the complaint, statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statement of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., a prima-facie case is made out against the applicant. It is further submitted that revision against summoning order has already been dismissed and in such circumstances interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be made only in exceptional circumstances.

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

6. At the outset it may be mentioned that by impugned order dated 24.08.2023 the applicant was summoned for offence under Section 500, 420 IPC and thereafter, the applicant has preferred a criminal revision against aforesaid order dated 24.08.2023, which has been dismissed by learned Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 29.07.2024. 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. Interference in such cases can only be made when 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 matter, the complainant has made allegations that the applicant, who claims himself to be a journalist, has made a false complaint against him and made a demand of money and that when he refused, he has published the false and defamatory news against applicant. As stated above, the revision against summoning order has already been dismissed 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. In the instant matter no such contingency is made out. Applying the principles set out in the judgments referred above to the case on hand, no case for invocation of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. Hence, the prayer as sought above is hereby refused.

12. However, it is directed that in case applicant moves an application for discharge within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. For a period of three weeks from today and in case, such an application is moved within the aforesaid period, till the disposal of such application, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant, provided applicant co-operates in early disposal of the discharge application.

13. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of in above terms.

Order Date :- 14.2.2025

'SP'/-