Allahabad High Court
Anek Singh vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 18 April, 2025
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:57308 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 12967 of 2025 Applicant :- Anek Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mithilesh Kumar Shukla 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 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as BNSS) has been preferred against the order dated 29.04.2024, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-7 Agra, in Complaint Case No.1769 of 2023 (Anek Singh Vs. Srilal and Others), Police Station- Sadar Bazar, District- Agra, whereby the complaint filed by the applicant/complainant has been dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The order dated 11.12.2024, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Agra, in Criminal Revision No.355 of 2024, is also being impugned, whereby the revision against order dated 29.04.2024 has been dismissed.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has filed the complaint against opposite party nos.2 to 5 making allegations that the said opposite parties are his relatives and that in the year 2012 they have taken an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on pretext of providing a job to the brother of complainant but neither any job was provided nor the said amount was returned back. The complainant has further alleged that when complainant demanded the said amount, the private opposite parties have abused him by using offensive language and threatened to kill him. It was submitted that in view of allegations made in the complaint, a prima-facie case is made out. The complainant has supported said version in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. have also supported that version but despite that the said complaint of applicant was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate vide impugned order date 29.04.2024. The applicant has preferred a criminal revision against that order, which has also been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Agra vide impugned order dated 11.12.2024. Learned counsel submitted that a prima-facie case is made out and thus a case of summoning of private opposite parties is made out. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that both the impugned orders are against facts and law and thus liable to be set aside.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there is no material illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. It was stated that revision against order dated 29.04.2024 has already been dismissed by the Session Court.
5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
6. At the outset it may be mentioned that by impugned order dated 29.04.2024 the complaint of applicant was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the applicant has preferred a criminal revision against aforesaid order dated 29.04.2024, which has been dismissed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 11.12.2024. 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. In such cases interference under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS can be made only when on examination of record the Court finds that 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 allegation of complainant is that the private opposite parties have taken an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 10.07.2012 from him on pretext of providing a job to his brother. The impugned complaint was lodged in the year 2023. It may be seen that five persons have been impleaded as accused in the impugned complaint and only a general allegation has been made that they have taken said amount from complainant and when complainant demanded the said amount, they have abused the complainant. No specific role has been assigned to any of the private opposite party. Learned Magistrate has considered the facts of the matter in correct perspective and dismissed the complaint by a reasoned order dated 29.04.2024. The revisional court has also considered facts and position of law and revision was dismissed. As stated above, once the revision is dismissed against the order passed by the Magistrate, interference under Section 528 BNSS can be made only in extraordinary circumstances like that there has been abuse of the process of court or miscarriage of justice. In the instant matter no such case is made out. Therefore, this application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merit and thus liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 BNSS is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.4.2025
‘SP’/-
[ad_1]
Source link