JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA, J.:---The applicant had filed proceedings for maintenance under section 125 Cri.P.C. The said proceedings were dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yavatmal vide judgment dated 31-3-1993. The applicant had filed revision against the said order and the revision was also dismissed vide judgment dated 28-11-1997 by the Sessions Judge, Yavatmal. The applicant has, therefore, approached this Court under section 482 Cri.P.C. The matter was admitted without notice to the respondent No. 1/husband. Therefore, learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 urged before me that application under section 482 Cri.P.C. cannot be entertained in view of bar under section 397(2) Cri.P.C. In support of his submission, learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 placed reliance on number of rulings to which I shall refer at a little later stage.

2. Learned Advocate for the applicant urged before me that jurisdiction under section 482 Cri.P.C. is not totally barred and that in appropriate cases this Court can exercise jurisdiction under section 482 Cri.P.C. inspite of there being bar under section 397(3) Cri.P.C. He has also placed reliance on a number of rulings in support of his submissions. I shall, therefore, now refer to the rulings upon which reliance has been placed by the learned Advocates for the parties. To start with, I shall first refer to the rulings on which reliance has been placed by the learned Advocate for respondent No. 1.

3. Learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 has relied upon (Rajan Kumar Machananda v. State of Karnataka)1, 1990(Supp.) S.C.C. 132, in which it has been laid down by the Apex Court that where a revision petition is dismissed by the Sessions Court, a second revision would not lie to the High Court and merely by saying that the jurisdiction of the High Court for exercise of its inherent power was being invoked the statutory bar could not have been overcome, because if that was to be permitted, every revision application facing the bar of section 397(3) of the Code could be labelled as one under section 482 Cri.P.C.

4. In (Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee another)2, 1990(2) S.C.C. 437, the Apex Court had laid down as under:---

"The inherent power of the High Court under section 482 is intended to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure ends of justice. Such powers are as much controlled by principle and precedent as are its express powers by statute. It cannot be exercised to do something which is expressly barred under the Code. If a matter is covered by an express letter of law, the Court cannot give a go-by to the statutory provisions and instead evolve a new provision in the garb of inherent jurisdiction. Therefore, it cannot be invoked to override bar of review under section 362. If there had been changes in the circumstances of the case, it would be in order for the High Court to exercise its inherent powers in the prevailing circumstances and pass appropriate orders to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. Where there is no such changed circumstances and the decision has to be arrived at on the facts that existed as on the date of the earlier order, the exercise of the power to reconsider the same materials to arrive at a different conclusion is in effect a review."

5. In (Dharampal and others v. Ramshri (Smt) and others)3, 1993(1) S.C.C. 435, the Apex Court has laid down that second revision application after dismissal of the first by the Sessions Court cannot be entertained by the High Court in the exercise of its inherent power under section 482 Cri.P.C. It has been pointed out that inherent power under section 482 Cri.P.C. cannot be utilised for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code.

6. In (Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa and others)4, 1995(4) S.C.C. 41, upon which reliance has been placed by the learned Advocates for both the parties, it has been laid down that while it is tr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document