VIPIN SAINI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this criminal miscellaneous application moved u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the prayer has been made to quash the order dated 10.1.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar on the application no.369/2007 moved u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. By the said order, the learned Magistrate rejected the application of the petitioner and did not find appropriate, in light of the facts disclosed therein, to make an order for registration and investigation of the case.

(2.) The said order of learned Magistrate was challenged by the petitioner by filing a criminal revision no.53/2008 before the court of Sessions Judge, who having heard the same, affirmed the order of learned CJM by passing the judgment and order dated 12.3.2008. The petitioner has also prayed to quash the order of learned Sessions Judge and at the same time, has requested to pass a favourable order directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate for exercising his powers u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.

(3.) At the very outset, a legal controversy arises before this Court as to whether the powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked at the instance of some party whose revision has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge u/s 397(1) Cr.P.C. In this regard, it would be worthwhile to mention the precedent of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Krishnan and another Vs. Krishnaveni and another, 1997 AIR(SCW) 950". In that case, Three Judges' Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the scope of Sections 397, 401, 482 and 483 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court while relying upon the various earlier precedents, rendered by the same Court in cases of "Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra, 1977 4 SCC 551" as well as in the case of "V.C. Shukla Vs. State through C.B.I., 1980 AIR(SC) 962" has reiterated that the powers of the High Court u/s 482 and 483 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked by filing a second revision because it is specifically barred u/s 397(3) Cr.P.C. In other words, when there is a specific bar for filing a second revision u/s 397(2) Cr.P.C., then the party, whose revision has been filed in the court of Sessions, cannot circumvent the bar, stated above, by putting a veil of Sections 482 and 483 Cr.P.C. upon his petition and invoking the powers of the High Court. However, this bar of Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. would not hamper the way of the High Court in exercising its inherent powers vested in it u/s 401 Cr.P.C., nay the plenary powers u/s 482 and 483 Cr.P.C., if there is a feeling or the party concerned is able to put forth and prove before the High Court that there has been grave miscarriage of justice by dismissal of his revision in the court of Sessions.