TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st entertaining a second revision, which has been expressly barred except in extraordinary cases. The bar as contained in Sub-Section (3) of Section 397 CrPC cannot be circumvented by resorting to Section 482 CrPC. A second revision under the grab of a quash petition under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable. This Court is of the view that there is no compelling circumstance or exceptional circumstance or it could not even be stated to be a rarest of rare case, warranting invocation of Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court, and it is a clear case that under the guise of second revision, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petition deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable - This Writ Petition (Criminal) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed unders 294/431 IPC, read with Section of 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (hereinafter, referred to as the PDPP Act ). 4. Accordingly after taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate, under Sections 294/431 IPC, read with Section 3 of PDPP Act, summons were issued to the accused petitioner and he has appeared before the learned Court of JMFC, Silchar. At the time of framing charge after hearing both sides, by order dated 04.10.2021, the accused petitioner was discharged by the learned Magistrate on the ground that that there were no sufficient materials to frame charges under Sections 294/431 IPC, read with Section 3 of the PDPP Act. 5. Against the said order dated 04.10.2021, the respondent/complainant has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 2) Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 460 3) Sanjay Kumar Rai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Anr.; U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 367 4) State of Haryana Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal; 1990 SCR Suppl. (3) 259 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that the framing of charge is an interlocutory order and hence, no revision lies and as per provision of law, second revision is not maintainable. 9. At this juncture, it is appropriate on the part of this Court to decide as to whether the criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC under the guise of second revision is maintainable. In this context, it is apposite to discuss the provisions of law. Section 397 CrPC is reproduced as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 10. While considering Section 397 (3) CrPC, it bars second revision. When the Sessions Judge refused to interfere with the order of the Magistrate, the High Court s jurisdiction was invoked. It also needs to be pointed out that Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. bars second revision by the same person and Section 482, CrPC, cannot be used to circumvent that bar but purpose, object, amplitude and extent of powers available to this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. impels this Court to interfere and quash the proceedings if continuation thereof is found to be an abuse of process of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 002 0 Supreme (SC) 283: 3.Before taking up the merits of the case, it would be proper to consider the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.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 482 Cr.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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 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 ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
