Allahabad High Court
Khalida Anjum vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 February, 2025
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:25938
Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24495 of 2024
Applicant :- Khalida Anjum
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava,Sandeep Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Janeshwar Mishra Bankata,Krishna Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
1. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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 summoning order dated 22.06.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Bareilly, in Complaint Case No.05 of 2023 (Anwar Ali Rizvi Vs. Amt. Khalida Anjum and another), Police Station- Qilla, District- Bareilly. The order dated 14.06.2024, passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Bareilly, in Criminal Revision No.75 of 2024, is also being impugned, whereby the revision against order dated 22.06.2023 has been dismissed.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is wife of opposite party no.2 and that no case is made out against the applicant. It was stated that the opposite party no.2 has remarried with some other lady and in that connection the applicant has made a complaint to District Inspector of School for necessary action against opposite party no.2 and thereafter the impugned complaint has been lodged by the opposite party no.2, making false and baseless allegations. It was submitted that learned revisional court has also not considered facts of the matter and position of law in correct perspective and committed error by dismissing the revision.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the application and submitted that the marriage of applicant with opposite party no.2 has taken place way back in the year 1994 and they have two grown up children. It was submitted that the applicant was continuously harassing the opposite party no.2 and earlier she has lodged a first information report against him on 31.05.2022 for offence under Sections 498A, 323, 494,, 506 IPC and after that the impugned complaint was lodged in order to harass him.
6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
7. At the outset it may be mentioned that by impugned order dated 22.06.2023 the applicant was summoned for offence under Sections 323, 504, 332 IPC and thereafter, the applicant has preferred a criminal revision against aforesaid order dated 22.06.2023, which has been dismissed by the Special Judge vide impugned order dated 14.06.2024. 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. In such circumstances inherent powers can be invoked only 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.
12. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that applicant is wife of opposite party no.2 and their marriage has taken place in the year 1994 and they have two grown up children. It appears that there was dispute between them on account of one tenant, namely, Shariq Naved. The complainant is working as a teacher. The complainant has made clear allegations that on 02.07.2022 applicant has forcibly entered into his college and hurled abuses against complainant and assaulted him by catching his collar. Said version of complainant was supported by witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The revision against summoning order has already been dismissed. As stated above 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 case 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.
13. 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.
14. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of in above terms.
Order Date :- 24.2.2025//'SP'/-
