Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 August, 2025
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134395 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24198 of 2025 Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bhriguram Ji,Deo Brat Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pramod Kumar Mishra,Suneel Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 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 summoning order dated 14.09.2022, passed by the A.C.J.M., Mirzapur in Case No.1682 of 2022 (State Vs. Rakesh), arising out of Case Crime No.46 of 2017, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC, Police Station- Chilh, District- Mirzapur, whereby the application filed by applicant seeking discharge has been rejected. The order dated 07.08.2024, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Mirzapur, in Criminal Revision No.178 of 2023, is also being impugned, whereby revision against order dated 14.09.2022 has been rejected.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that impugned orders are against facts and law and thus liable to be quashed. The first information report of this case was got lodged by a private person by moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., whereas he has no locus to lodge the first information report. The Investigating Officer has not investigated the matter properly and charge-sheet was submitted in a routine manner without proper investigation. It was submitted that the Investigating Officer in collusion with opposite party no.2 has obtained a report from University, which differs from earlier verification report of the mark-sheet of applicant, wherein marks of applicant were shown 335 out of 500. As per verification report of Investigating Officer the marks of applicant were shown 194 out of 600 in High School Examination. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima-facie case is made out against applicant.
4. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. There are allegations that applicant has committed forgery in his High School Mark-sheet and obtained job of Rojgar Sewak by using that document. It is further submitted that charges have already been framed against applicant and now case is fixed for prosecution evidence.
5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
6. It is well settled that while considering discharge application, the Court is to exercise its judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has been made out or not. At this stage, a mini trial cannot be held and the Court can shift and weigh the evidence for limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused is made out or not. Where material placed on record discloses grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in rejecting application for discharge. The Court is not to hold mini trial by marshalling the evidence at this stage.
7. It would be pertinent to mention that revision against the order passed by the trial Court has already been dismissed by the Session Court. 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 does not bar a person from invoking power of High Court under Section 482Cr.P.C./528 BNSS but this Court can not act as a second Revisional Court under garb of exercising inherent powers. In such cases inherent powers can be invoked 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. In the instant matter the allegation against applicant is that he has passed his examination equivalent to high school, in 3rd Division but he has committed forgery and produced mark-sheet of Ist Division, while applying for job of Rojgar Sewak. It was also alleged that in the year 1992 applicant has studied in two separate educational institutions for the same class i.e. High School. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against applicant. The applicant has filed discharge application, which was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 14.09.2022. Learned trial Court has considered all relevant facts of the matter and discharge application was rejected by a reasoned order. No substantial illegality could be shown in the said order. The applicant has preferred a criminal revision against that order, which has been dismissed by the Session Court vide order dated 07.08.2024. Learned Revisional Court has also considered facts of the matter in detail and revision was dismissed by a reasoned order. No material illegality or perversity could be shown in the impugned orders. As stated above, once revision is dismissed against an order of Magistrate, interference under Section 528 BNSS can only be made when there is abuse of the process of court or miscarriage of justice. In the instant matter no such case is made out. The application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 BNSS is dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.8.2025
‘SP’/-