RADHEY SHYAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned PP for the State and the learned counsel for the accused respondent.

(2.) Petitioner has filed this criminal petition u/s. 482 Crimial P.C. for quashing the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bassi, District Jaipur, dated 6.10.2006 whereby application u/s. 319 Crimial P.C. wherein it was requested to proceed against Prem Devi, Anju', Sangeeta, Kuldeep, Sandeep, Mukesh, Rameshwar and Sunil for the offence under sections 336, 427 and 448 IPC, was dismissed. The petitioner was also challenged the order of the learned Sessions judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur dated 20.11.2006 whereby his revision petition against the said order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bassi, was also dismissed.

(3.) At the very out set, the learned counsel for the accused respondent submitted that the petition u/s. 482 Crimial P.C. does not lie as the second revision u/s. 397(3). The learned counsel for the accused respondent placed reliance in Dharam Pal & Others Vs. Smt. Ramshri & Others (Crimes 1-1993(1) Page 304) . In this regard, it may be noted that the Honourable Supreme Court has clearly laid down in Krishnan and another Vs. Krishnaveni and another (AIR 1997 SC 987) that ordinarily, when revision has been barred by section 397(3) of the Code, a person accused/complainant-cannot be allowed to take recourse to the revision to the High Court under section 397(1) or under inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Code since it may amount to circumvention of the provisions of section 397(3) or section 397(2) of the Code. Honourable the Supreme Court has further observed that when the High Court on examination of the record finds that there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of the courts or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice, it is but the duty of the High Court to have it corrected at the inception lest grave miscarriage of justice would ensue. Thus the position of law has been clarified by the Honourable Supreme Court and in the aforementioned circumstances, the inherent power u/s. 482 Crimial P.C. can be invoked.