PREM Vs. BUDH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions (Cr. M.M.O. Nos. 17 and 18 of 1999) arise out of a common order dated 16-2-1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Solan, whereby two Revision Petitions No. 14-S/10 of 1998 and 15-S/10 of 1998 were dismissed and the order dated 24-8-1998 of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Solan summoning the petitioners in the said Revision petitions as accused in a Criminal complaint filed by the respondent was affirmed. The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Solan by his order dated 24-8-1998 had summoned the petitioners, except petitioner No. 6, in Cr. M.M.O. No. 17 of 1999 under Ss. 107, 109, 143, 149, 441, 503 and 506, IPC and petitioner No. 6 Bagga Ram under S. 109, IPC only and the petitioners in Cr. M.M.O. No. 18 of 1999 under Ss. 109, 120, 143, 149, 109 and 506, IPC. Having failed in their Revision Petitions before the Sessions Judge, the petitioners by filing these petitions have invoked the inherent powers 0f this Court under S. 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the complaint of the respondent as a consequence of which the summoning order dated 24-8-1998 of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class and the order of the Sesions Judge dated 19-2-1999 passed in the Revision Petitions will stand upset.

(2.) This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The first question to be answered is whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under S. 482, Cr. P.C. in a case in which the Sessions judge has already refused to interfere in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction in the context of S. 397(1) read with S. 397(3) Cr. P.C.? This point is no longer res integra and came up for consideration directly or indirectly in a number of cases decided by the Supreme Court.

(3.) In Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 2185 : (1977 Cri LJ 1891) in the context of S. 397(2) Cr. P.C. which prohibits Revision petition against interlocutory order. It was held in para 3 of the judgment :