Jitendra Yadav And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 5233 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Jitendra Yadav And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 February, 2025

Author: Raj Beer Singh

Bench: Raj Beer Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23632
 
Court No. - 73
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18575 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Jitendra Yadav And 4 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the summoning order dated 04.12.2023, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha, in Complaint Case No. 6004 of 2023 (Smt. Neksi @ Neksiya Vs. Jitendra Yadav and Others), under Sections - 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C., Police Station - Rahra, District - Amroha. The order dated 16.04.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Amroha, in Criminal Revision No. 37 of 2024 (Jitendra Yadav and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another), is also being impugned, whereby the revision against order dated 04.12.2023, has been dismissed.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant no.1 was working as 'Lekhpal' and that an application was made by one Chandrapal regarding 'paimaish' (measurement) of his land and that in pursuance to order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, applicant no.1 has gone at the said land for measurement. The allegation that applicant no.1 illegally got possession of other party (applicant no.2 to 5) on the land of complainant and crops of complainant was also taken away, is wholly false. Applicant no.1 has merely performed his duty. Similarly, the allegation that applicants have pushed the complainant with leg or assaulted her is also false and baseless. Applicants have not committed any offence. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima facie case is made out against applicants. Learned Trial court committed error by summoning the applicants. Similarly, learned Revisional Court has also failed to consider the facts of the matter in correct perspective while dismissing the revision filed against summoning order. It was submitted that both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that applicant no.1/Lekhpal has to merely perform measurement of the land but he along with applicant no.2 to 5 went at the spot without any information and they illegally took possession over the land of complainant and that they have illegally taken away crop of complainant. The complainant has further alleged that when she objected, she was abused and assaulted by the applicants and her clothes were torn.

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

6. At the outset, it may be mentioned that by impugned order dated 04.12.2023, the applicants were summoned for offences under Section - 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. and thereafter, the applicants have preferred a criminal revision against aforesaid order dated 04.12.2023, which has been dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Amroha vide impugned order dated 16.04.2024. It is correct that availing of the remedy of the revision before the Sessions Judge under Section - 399 Cr.P.C. does not bar a person from invoking the power of the High Court under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. 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 alias Arati 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 482 Cr.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.

11. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, in the instant matter, it appears that the complainant has alleged that applicant no.1 is working as 'Lekhpal', and he along with other applicants has gone at the spot for measurement of land but they illegally took possession over the land of complainant and her crops was illegally taken away. The complainant has also alleged that when objected, applicants have assaulted her and hit with legs and her clothes were torn. It also appears from record that due to the said act of applicant No.1, he was suspended by the concern Revenue authority. The complainant has supported her version in her statement recorded under Section - 200 Cr.P.C.. The version of complainant is further supported by the witnesses examined under Section - 202 Cr.P.C.. As stated above, the revision against summoning order has already been dismissed and in such situation the interference under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. 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. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and thus liable to be dismissed.

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

Order Date :- 19.2.2025

S Rawat