Allahabad High Court
Widow Akhilesh Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 12 Others on 24 April, 2025
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62285 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1633 of 2025 Applicant :- Widow Akhilesh Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 12 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar,Vinod Kumar Yadav 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 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 22.08.2022, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Bareilly in Complaint Case No.592 of 2022 (Widow Akhilesh Sharma Vs. Munna Lal and others), under Section 500 IPC, Police Station- Bahedi, District- Bareilly, whereby the complaint filed by the applicant/complainant has been dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The order dated 16.08.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Bareilly, in Criminal Revision No.380 of 2022, is also being impugned, whereby the revision against order dated 22.08.2022 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 13 and that a prima-facie case is made out against them. In her statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. the applicant has stated that on 25.03.2017 while she was talking with her advocate in court premises, the opposite party no.3 Parashuram has abused her and he has thrown a piece of paper at her and it was found that in said paper it was mentioned that applicant is a bhumafia and she indulges in prostitution. Learned counsel submitted that a prima-facie case under Section 500 IPC is made out but the complaint of applicant was dismissed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly vide order dated 22.08.2022. Applicant has preferred a criminal revision against that order but revision has also been dismissed. Learned counsel has referred facts of the matter and submitted that 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.
5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
6. At the outset it may be mentioned that by impugned order dated 22.08.2022 the complaint of applicant was dismissed by learned Magistrate under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The revision against that order has also been dismissed by the Revisional Court vide order dated 16.08.2024. 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 Court should not act as a second Revisional Court under garb of exercising inherent powers.
11. In the instant matter, it appears from record that some cases are pending between the parties. In her statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the applicant has made allegation that applicant no.3 Parashuram has abused and thrown a piece of paper on her and in that paper it was mentioned that applicant is a ‘bhumafia’ and she indulges in prostitution. There is nothing to show that the oppsotie parties have spoken any such words or they have published the same. The complaint was dismissed by a reasoned order. As revision has already been dismissed, in such situation the interference under Section 482 CrPC can only be made in case when 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. Applying the principles set out in the judgments referred above to the case in hand, no case for invocation of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 :- 24.4.2025
‘SP’/-