M/S Prakash Electricals vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 7 July, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

M/S Prakash Electricals vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 7 July, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
           Criminal Misc. Application No.357 of 2024
M/s Prakash Electricals                            .........Applicant

                              Versus

State of Uttarakhand & another                  .........Respondents

Mr. Antriksh Bhaskar, learned counsel for the applicant through video
conferencing.
Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

By means of the present C482 application, the
applicant is seeking following reliefs:-

“(i) Set aside the order dated 23.02.2024 passed by
learned District and Sessions Judge, Tehri in Revision
Petition No.36 of 2023 and hold the Revision Petition
No.36 of 2023 as non maintainable in view of Section
397(2) Cr.P.C.

(ii) Restore the order dated 28.10.2023 passed by
learned Trial Court in Case No.1577 of 2022.”

2. The facts in brief are that the present applicant is
impleaded as an accused in a complaint under Section 138
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 bearing Criminal Case
No.1577 of 2022. The dispute arose when the present
applicant moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
seeking the re-examination of present respondent no.2. The
said application was allowed vide order dated 28.10.2023.
The respondent no.2 thereafter, against the said order moved
a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before the learned
District and Sessions Judge, Tehri, which was allowed by the
learned District and Sessions Judge, Tehri vide order dated

1
23.02.2024 and thereby set aside the order passed by the
learned Trial Court.

3. The counsel for the applicant submits that the
learned revisional court has committed a grave irregularity by
allowing the said revision as the order dated 28.10.2023
passed by learned Trial Court in which Section 311
application was allowed was a interlocutory order and
Section 397(2) clearly bars any revisional court to interfere
with an interlocutory order.

4. The counsel for the respondent no.2 relying upon
his counter affidavit restricted his arguments only to the point
that as the present applicant had an opportunity to challenge
the order of learned Sessions Judge via a revision petition,
this C482 application is not maintainable.

5. The applicant in his rejoinder affidavit submitted
that it is settled legal proposition that this Hon’ble Court can
exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to
prevent abuse of process of law.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and after perusing the material available on record, this Court
is of the view that the intention of the legislature in enacting
Section 482 Cr.P.C. was to provide powers to this Court in
unforeseen circumstances when no other efficacious remedy
was available to the applicant under the Code of Criminal
Procedure. But by the bare perusal of records, it clearly
transpires that the applicant had an option to go in revision
against the impugned order dated 23.02.2024 passed by
learned District and Sessions Judge, Tehri as the applicant

2
was the opposite party before the learned Sessions Judge in
Criminal Revision Petition No.36 of 2023 and therefore, if he
was aggrieved by the order of Sessions Judge, he could have
filed revision before the High Court. My view is further
fortified by the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Krishnan and another vs. Krishnaveni and another; 1997
Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 544, whereby, the Hon’ble Apex
Court held that a second revision is not maintainable before the
High Court at the instance of the same party whose revision has
been dismissed by the Sessions Judge. But the party who was
opposite party before the Sessions Judge in the revision, if
aggrieved by order of the Sessions Judge, can maintain a revision
before the High Court.

7. Accordingly, the present C482 application is
hereby dismissed. Needless to say, the applicant is free to
challenge the impugned order passed by learned revisional
court by availing appropriate remedies.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
07.07.2025
Ravi

3