LALLAN PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAITHLI Sharan, J. This is a peti tion filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr. P. C. invoking the inherent powers of this Court with the prayer that the order dated 2-2-89 (Annexure No. 2) passed by the Addi. Munsif- Magistrate Faizabad, sum moning the petitioner be quashed, and, further, the order of the Vlth Addl. Sessions Judge dated 18-1-90 passed in Revision-petition No. 49 of 1989 be also quashed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that op posite party No. 2 lodged a first information report on 8-8-1988 under Section 307 I. P. C. against the petitioner at Police Station Haiderganj, district Faizabad. After the in vestigation of the case Police submitted final report before the Magistrate. Opposite party No. 2 moved a protest application before the Magistrate. Learned Magistrate recorded the statement and passed the sum moning order against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said order dated -2- 89 by filing a revision-petition in the Court of Sessions. Vlth Addl. Sessions Judge by his aforesaid order dismissed the revision petition. Now the petitioner has come to this Court, invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P. C. Hon'ble the Supreme Court inkrishnan and another v. Krishnaveni and another JT1997 (1) SC 657 has observed in this regard that power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is very wide, but High Court must exercise such power sparingly and cautious ly when the Sessions Judge simultaneously exercised revisional power under Section 397 (1) Cr. P. C. It has further been observed that the object of Section 397 (3) Cr. P. C. is to put a bar on simultaneous revisional ap plication to the High Court and the Court of Sessions so as to prevent unnecessary delay and multiplicity of proceedings. Thus, the crux of the matter is that it is now settled legal position that under these circumstan ces the petitioner whose revision-petition has been dismissed by the Sessions Court might approach the High Court under Sec tion 482 Cr. P. C. but the High Court shall be reluctant in exercising the inherent powers and those powers shall be exercised very sparingly and cautiously only to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct the ir regularity of the procedure.