Allahabad High Court
Smt. Suman Devi vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others on 10 April, 2025
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ? Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52566 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11855 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Suman Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh,Ramesh Kumar 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 04.05.2024, passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in Complaint No.226 of 2024, Police Station- Khandauli, District- Agra. The order dated 21.01.2025, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Agra, in Criminal Revision No.564 of 2024, is also being impugned, whereby the revision against order dated 04.05.2024 has been dismissed.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is complainant of the aforesaid case and she has filed the said complaint against private opposite parties making several allegations. The father-in-law of applicant has executed a power of attorney in favour of opposite party no.2 and he has sold the part of disputed property in favour of applicant no.3. It was submitted that said attorney holder (O.P. No.2) has sold 1/3 share of the 1/2 share of father-in-law of the complainant but mutation was made in respect of entire 1/2 share of the property of her father-in-law. The applicant no.3 has executed several sale-deeds of the said property to others. Learned counsel has referred statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and submitted that a prima-facie case is made out against the private opposite parties but the complaint of applicant was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. in an arbitrary manner. The applicant has preferred a criminal revision against order dated 04.05.2024 but that revision has also been dismissed by the Additional Sessions judge, Court no.9 Agra, without considering facts and law in correct perspective. Referring to facts of the mater, it was submitted that a prima-facie case was made out and both the impugned orders are 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 further submitted that revision against order under Section 203 Cr.P.C. has already been rejected.
5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
6. Perusal of records shows that the complaint of applicant was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. vide impugned order dated 04.05.2024. The applicant has preferred a revision against that order, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 21.01.2025. It is correct that availing of the remedy of the revision before the Sessions Judge does not bar a person from invoking the power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS but it is equally true that the High Court should not act as a second Revisional Court under the garb of exercising inherent powers.
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 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, essentially the dispute relates to sale and purchase of the property and the mater in dispute appears to be civil in nature. The main allegation is that the opposite party No.2/attorney holder has executed sale-deed of the 1/3 share of the property of father-in-law of the complainant but mutation has done in respect of more land than sold by the attorney holder. Learned Magistrate has considered facts of the matter and the complaint was dismissed by a reasoned order. The revisional court has also considered the facts of the matter and the revision against summoning order was dismissed. No patent illegality could be shown in the impugned orders. As stated above, after dismissal of revision, interference under Section 528 BNSS can only be made in extraordinary circumstances like in case of gross failure of justice or in case of abuse of the process of court. In the instant matter, no such case is made out so as to require any interference by invoking extraordinary powers under Section 528 BNSS. The application under section 528 BNSS lacks merit and thus liable to be dismissed.
12. The application u/s 528 BNSS is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.4.2025
‘SP’/-