BHEEK CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated January 30,1988, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, in Criminal Revision No. 19 of 1987, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners.

(2.) THE Station House Officer, Police Station, Jaisalmer, on February 23,1987, filed a complaint under Section 145, Cr. P. C. in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaisalmer, on the ground that there is likelihood of breach of peace with respect to Shiv Temple situated Gandhi Colony of Jaisalmer and Soni community and Swami community -both - claim their possession over the temple. It was, also, mentioned in that a complaint under Section 107/116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against both Communities on February, 20,1987. According to the the complaint, as there was likelihood of breach of peace with respect to the possession of this Shiv temple, proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. May be taken and the temple may be attached and a Receiver may be appointed. After the receipt of this complaint, the learned Magistrate fixed the case for local inspection on May 24,1987 and after visiting the spot and perusing the complaint, the learned Magistrate on February 24,1987, drawn a preliminary order under Section 145 Cr. P. C. and attached the property and also appointed the Station House Officer as the Receiver for taking possession and managing the property of the temple till further orders. THE learned Magistrate also, issued notices to the party No. 1 as well as to the party No. 2. After the service of the notices, party No. 1 submitted an application under Section 146 (2) Cr. P. C. on March 20,1987, and requested the Court to drop the proceedings. It was stated in the application that with respect to this very temple, proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. were earlier taken on November 8,1985, on the report of the Station House Officer, police Station, Jaisalmer, and after the inquiry, the proceedings were dropped by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate by his order dated March 31,1986. THE party No. 2 filed a reply to this application and the learned Magistrate, by his order dated June 16,1987, rejected the application filed by party No. l and fixed the case for evidence on June 23,1987. Dissatisfied with the order dated June 16, 1987, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the party No. 1 Bheek Chand and Bhanwar Lal filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Jaisalmer, who by his order dated January 30,1988, dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner It is against this order that the present petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed by the petitioners.

(3.) THE second preliminary objection, raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is regarding the maintainability of the present petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. THE learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate, on the complaint filed by the Station House Officer, Police Station Jaisalmer, by his order dated February 24,1987, drawn the preliminary order and appointed the S. H. O. as the Receiver and issued notices. After the receipt of the notice, the petitioners, who were party No. l before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, filed an application under Section 145 (2) Cr. P. C. , which was dismissed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate by his order dated June 16,1987. Aggrieved with the order dated June, 16,1987. Passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, who by his order dated January 30, 1988, Dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners. As there is a statutory bar provided under Section 397 (3) Cr. P. C. for filing a second revision petition by same party, and to circumvent that bar, the petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482,cr. P. C. By this petition, the petitioners, want to get the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate revised and in this view of the matter, the petition under Section, 482 Cr. P. C. is nothing but a second revision petition, though styled as a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. Merely by changing the nomenclature, the nature of the petition cannot be change. THE Supreme Court, in the case of Ranjan Kumar vs. the State of Karnataka (Supra) dealing with the maintain aloipity of petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. in the presence of specific bar of Section 397 (3) Cr. P. C. , has observed as under :- Where a revision petition is dismissed by the Sessions Court second revision would not lie to the High Court. Merely by saying that the jurisdiction of the High was for exercise of its inherent power being invoked, the statutory bar should not have been over-come. If that was to be permitted, very revision applications facing the bar of Section 397 (3) Cr. P. C. could be labelled as one under Section 482. "