Sajid And 3 Others vs State Of Upand Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 5506 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Sajid And 3 Others vs State Of Upand Another on 27 February, 2025

Author: Raj Beer Singh

Bench: Raj Beer Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27232
 
Court No. - 73
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29229 of 2024
 
Applicant :- Sajid And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of Upand Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeet Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
 

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

2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the summoning order dated 16.01.2019, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Saharanpur in Complaint Case No. 5126 of 2018, arising out of case crime no. 0230 of 2017, under Section 379 I.P.C., Police Station Janakpuri, District Saharanpur. The order dated 09.08.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, court No. 8, Saharanpur, in criminal revision no. 585 of 2023 is also being impugned.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that both the impugned orders are against facts and law ans thus, liable to be set aside. The opposite party No. 2 has lodged a first information report against applicants making false and baseless allegations that they have committed theft of the wood, which was attached by the Tehsildar and given in possession of village pradhan. After investigation, police have submitted final report in favour of the applicants. The opposite party No. 2 has preferred a protest petition, which was registered as a complaint case and applicants were summoned vide impugned order dated 16.01.2019. Learned counsel submitted that applicants have already deposited an amount of Rs. 6,100/- against disappearance of the said wood and on that basis police have submitted final report in their favour. The applicants have been falsely implicated due to village party-bandi. It was further submitted that the applicants have filed a criminal revision against summoning order, which too was dismissed vide impugned order dated 09.08.2024. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there are allegations against the applicants that they have committed theft of government wood, which was in custody (superdagi) of village pradhan. After investigation, police have submitted final report in favour of the applicants on the basis that applicants have deposited an amount of Rs. 6,100/- against theft of that wood. It was further submitted that applicants have been summoned on the basis of evidence and a prima facie case is made out against them. Mere deposition of amount against theft of government wood, would not wash away the offence. The revision against the summoning order has already been dismissed.

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

6. At the outset it may be mentioned that by impugned order dated 16.01.2019 applicants have been summoned to face the trial for the offence under Section 379 IPC. The applicants have preferred a criminal revision against aforesaid order dated 16.01.2019, which has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, vide impugned order dated 09.08.2024. 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. On this 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 can 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.

11. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, in the instant case it may be seen that there are allegations against the applicants that they have committed theft of government wood, which was in superdagi of village pradhan. After investigation, police have submitted final report in favour of the applicants on the basis that applicants have already deposited an amount of Rs. 6,100/- against theft of that wood. Mere deposition of amount against theft of government wood, would not wash away the offence. The complainant has supported this version in his statement, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The version of complainant was further supported by witnesses, examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate has summoned the applicants considering all attending facts. Similarly the revisional court has considered the entire facts and law and dismissed the revision. As criminal revision against the summoning order dated 16.01.2019 has already been dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated 09.08.2024, in such situation the interference under Section 482 CrPC can only be made when there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the court 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, no such case is made out. In view of the aforesaid, the prayer as made above, is hereby refused.

12. However, it is directed that in case applicants appear/surrender before the trial court concerned within a period of four weeks from today and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. For a period of four weeks from today or till the applicants appear/surrender before the court concerned, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

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

Order Date :- 27.2.2025

Anand