GHANSHAM JOSHI Vs. PARMINDER PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused -petitioner have sought to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala, dated May 5, 1983, dismissing the revision petition of the petitioners against the order passed by the trial Magistrate (Copy annexure P -3) whereby the petitioners were summoned to face trial under Sections 148, 315, 318, 406/149 and 109/120 -B, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) WITHOUT going into the details of the grounds taken up in the petition, in substance the allegations made by the respondent amount to this. That the accused petitioners with a view to grab the respondent's jewellery and clothes etc. and with the intention to marry his wife Chander Mani, second time, had killed his unborn daughter by administering poison before her birth and disposed of her deadbody. The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, who vide his order dated 20 -12 -1982, found a prima facie case against them and accordingly ordered that the process be issued against them under the said offences. The revision petition filed by the petitioners against the said order was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on May 5, 1983. By means of the present petition, the order of the trial Court is sought to be quashed by invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, (for short the Code).

(3.) THE present petition has to fail as being incompetent. It is an admitted fact that the revision petition filed by the petitioners before the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, has been dismissed. A concurrent jurisdiction is vested under the law and the Court of Session can exercise the power of revision. It is provided in Section 397 (2) of the Code that if an application for revision is made by any person either to this Court or the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them. Obviously, second revision petition could not have been filed in this case and that is why a recourse to Section 482 of the Code seems to have been made. However such a course cannot be permitted to the garb of an application filed under some other provision of the law. In this view I am fortified by a Supreme Court decision in Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh another, AIR 1979 SC 381.