IMPORTANT POINT
The power of the High Court and the Court of Sessions. So far as revision is concerned are concurrent. Having awaited the remedy by filing revision before the Sessions Judge the petitioner can not be permitted to avail second chance, the bar of sub-see (3) of Section 397 Cr. P.C. will come in his way.

JUDGMENT

Usha Mehra, J. - This petition involved an important question of law regarding the inherent powers of High Court vis-a-vis the scope and ambit of the provisions contained under Sub Section 3 of Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure. It is well settled that the inherent power of the Court can ordinarily be exercised when there is no express provision on the subject matter. Where there is an express provision, barring a particular remedy, the Court cannot resort to the exercise of inherent powers. The Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Limaye v. State1 has laid down three principles in relation to exercise of inherent powers of the High Court:

"1. That the power is not to be resorted if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of grievance of the aggrieved party,

2. that it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of any process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,

3. That it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code."

2. The Supreme Court in subsequent decisions, in Raj Kapoor, Vidyacharan Shukla and Municipal Corporation of Delhi, affirmed the ratio laid down in Madhu Limaye's case. However, in the case of Madhu Limaye, the Supreme Court was examining the impact on the inherent power on account of the bar of remedy of revision against the interlocutory order provided under Sub Section (2) of Section 397 Cr. P.C. and came to the conclusion that the inherent power of the High Court cannot be taken away because of the complete bar of remedy of revision provided under Sub Section (2) of Section 397. Interlocutory orders were amenable to the revisional jurisdiction and, therefore, the inherent power of the High Court can dot be abrogated. But in that case the Supreme Court was not dealing with sub Section (3) of Section 397. Where the remedy is not completely barred but availing of that remedy second time is, prohibited.

In order to determine whether this Court can entertain second revision filed by an unsuccessful revisionist, it will be worthwhile to know in brief the facts of the case.

3. One Mrs. Sunita Sehgal was the owner of plot bearing No. 1274, Gati No. 2. Satsang Marg, Raj Garh Colony, Kristina Nagar, Delhi. Bachan, petitioner No.2, is stated to be the tenant of Smt. Sunita Sehgal. Petitioner No.1 Anil Kumar is running business of waste paper in this premises since 1988. Bachan and Raj Rani have got a separate portion. Bachan is stated to be residing since 1985. It is the case of the petitioner that Moti Ram the respondent No.1 is the attorney of Smt. Sunita Sehgal.

4. On 28th February, 1987, the police initiated proceedings against the petitioners by filing a report before Shri S.S. Rathore, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shahdara, regarding a dispute over the plot in question between the petitioners and the respondents. Anil Kumar and others, the petitioner asserted that they were in possession for more than 2 years while Moti Ram and others asserted that the possession of the petitioners were illegal. Besides the dispute overhand pump and use of latrine and gate, there was apprehension of breach of peace. A 'Kalandra' under Section 107 and 150 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was sent to the Special Executive Magistrate against both the parties.

5. Mr. Sanjay P. Singh Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shahdara, on the basis of the report dated 1st March, 1987 sent by the S.H.O. Krishna Nagar, took cognizance under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure Code. The said order is dated 11th March, 1987. Thereafter Shri S.S. Rathore SDM Shahdara called a detailed report regarding the property in question and also wanted to know whether there still existed any apprehension of breach of peace. This report was called vide order dated on 22nd June, 1987. Mr. R.B. Sharma, S.I. submitted his report on 28th June, 1987 intimating therein that on account of the dispute regarding possession of the property in question both th