RITESH KUMAR Vs. INSPECTOR BAL KISHAN SHO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents questioning the maintainability of the petition. The preliminary objection is as follows :- "An appeal against the order of trial Court under Section 340 refusing to make a complaint against the respondents having already been dismissed and no revision under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being permissible, Section 482 of the Code cannot be invoked even for the purpose of looking into the allegations of abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice as the power comprised therein is in the nature of second revision.

(2.) In order to deal with the preliminary objection it is necessary to detail a few facts. An FIR was filed against the petitioner under Sections 147/148/149/427/342 Indian Penal Code in Police Station Bhajan Pura. The petitioner alleged that in connection with the F.I.R. the respondents-police officers fabricated two D.D. entries. On this ground he moved an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate for making a complaint against the respondents under Section 193 Indian Penal Code but the learned Metropolitan Magistrate declined the prayer of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, on August 6, 1996. The petitioner has filed the instant application under Section 482 of the for directing the subordinate Court for filing the complaint under Section 193 Indian Penal Code against the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, as already pointed out, has taken the above said preliminary objection against the maintainability of the petition. In this regard learned counsel has invited my attention to Sections 195(1)(b), 340 and 341 of the Code. These sections read as follows :-

(3.) Thus, it is apparent that the order passed by a Court under Section 340 of the Code is not subject to revision, but Section 341(2) does not bar the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code for preventing the abuse of process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. Section 482 of the Code confers very wide powers on the High Court to do justice to the parties. Section 341(2) of the Code cannot limit or affect exercise of inherent powers of the High Court. It is Section 482 which regulates the inherent powers of this Court. Section 482 has a different parameter than Section 397 which deals with the revisional powers of the High Court but some times the possibility of overlapping in the exercise of the two powers cannot be ruled out. In Krishnan and another v. Krishnaveni and another, 1997 Crl.L.J. 1519, the Supreme Court examined the scope of Sections 482 and 483 of the Code. A comparison was made between the revisional powers of the High Court and the object of Sections 482 and 483. The Supreme Court, in this regard, held as follows :-