Allahabad High Court
Mahant Shivram Das vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 April, 2025
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65692 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2091 of 2025 Applicant :- Mahant Shivram Das Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Girijesh Kumar Gupta,Shiv Shankar Pd Gupta 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 u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the summoning order dated 19.01.2024, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Rampur in Complaint Case No. 423 of 2012, under Sections 452, 323, 392 I.P.C., Police Station Shahbad, District Rampur. The order dated 21.10.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Rampur, in criminal revision no. 210 of 2024 is also being impugned.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that both the impugned orders are against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. The impugned complaint has been filed by opposite party No. 2/complainant making false and baseless allegations. In fact applicant is Mahant of the disputed temple, which belongs to ‘Sriramanandi Bairagi Nihag Sampraday’ and an appointment letter had also been issued in favour of the applicant. On the complaint of the complainant summoning order was passed vide order dated 11.10.2012, whereby the applicant and one Shatrudhan Das, Ramkumar, Prem Kumar Sharma and Shivcharan Singh were summoned for the offence under Section 452, 323, 392 IPC and against the said summoning order a criminal revision was filed, which was allowed and the said summoning order was set aside and matter was remanded back. After that the impugned summoning order dated 19.01.2024 has been passed. Learned counsel submitted that learned Magistrate has not considered the facts of the matter in correct perspective and applicant was summoned in an arbitrary manner. The applicant has preferred a criminal revision against the impugned summoning order dated 19.01.2024 but the revision has also been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Rampur vide impugned order dated 21.10.2024. The revisional court has also not considered the facts and position of law and committed error by dismissing the revision. Referring to facts of the matter, 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 the impugned summoning order has already been upheld by the revisional court and that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders.
5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
6. At the outset it may be mentioned that by impugned order dated 19.01.2024 applicant has been summoned to face the trial for the offence under Sections 452, 323, 392 I.P.C. The applicant has preferred a criminal revision against aforesaid order dated 19.01.2024, which has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 21.10.2024. 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 complaint.
11. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, in the instant case it may be seen that the opposite party No. 2/complainant has made allegations that the disputed property belongs to ‘Sriramanandi Bairagi Nihag Sampraday’. Sri Brahmdas was its Mahant and during his life-time he has declared the complainant as his heir. Mahant Brahmdas has passed away on 11.04.2009 and since then the complainant was working as Mahant. The complainant has further alleged that applicant and his companion wanted to grab the disputed property and on 13.05.2022 they have trespassed into the property and assaulted the complainant and others persons and they have taken away jewellery and others items of the temple. 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 applicant considering all attending facts. Similarly the revisional court has considered the entire facts and law and dismissed the revision. No patent illegality or perversity could be shown in the impugned orders. As criminal revision against the summoning order dated 19.01.2024 has already been dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated 21.10.2024, 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 case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. Therefore, this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed.
12. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.4.2025
Anand