IMPORTANT POINT
Second revision before High Court is not maintainable after dismissal of revision by Sessions Court & inherent powers can not be utilised by High Court for exercising powers which are expressly barred by Code.

JUDGMENT

G.T. Nanavati. J.- Leave granted.

The appellant made a complaint to the Officer Incharge of Women Police Station, Bilaspur alleging demand of dowry, harassment and cruelty by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 being the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively. The police after making investigation, filed a charge sheet against the said respondents in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bilaspur, indicating commission of an offence under section 498 (A) IPC. The learned Magistrate after supplying copies, of the charge sheet and other documents and hearing the learned Advocate for the accused framed a charge under section 498(A). The order framing the charge was challenged by the accused by filing Criminal Revision No. 260 of 1993 in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. The learned Addl. Judge was of the view that there was sufficient material to frame a charge against all the accused and therefore, dismissed the Revision Application. Thereafter the accused approached the High Court under section 482 Cr. P.C. with a prayer to quash the said charge and the proceedings instituted upon the basis of the aforesaid charge sheet. The High Court referred to its earlier order dt. 29-10-1993 whereby respondent No. l's application for quashing the charge was rejected. It then proceeded to consider the application of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for quashing the charge. In its order the High Court has observed that:

“On perusal of the record, it transpires that no specific overt act is attributed to the applicants 2 and 3, who are in-laws of the informant. The allegation that she was subjected to physical and mental torture are attributed to her husband who is not an applicant in this case.”

It then referred to the concession made by the Deputy Government Advocate that “there is no material for framing of charge against the present applicants under section 498(A) IPC”. On these grounds it allowed the application and quashed the charge framed under section 498(A) against applicant Nos.2 and 3. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the wife has approached this Court.

2. It was contended by the learned counse1 for the appellant-wife that the finding recorded by the High Court that there is no allegation of beating, harassment and demand against respondents 2 and 3 is because of misreading the complaint and the other material on record. In view of this contention, we have gone through the complaint filed by the appellant and also the statements of Suresh Chandra Verma, father of the appellant, Devesh, elder brother of the appellant and Ramesh, cousin of the appellant. In her complaint the appellant has clearly stated that three or four months after the marriage her husband, her father-in-law and mother-in-law started harassing her as VCR was not given to her in dowry. She has further stated that her father-in-law and mother-in-law used to demand Rs. 6,500/- in cash. She has also stated that she was beaten by her husband on 27-7-1990, 4-10-1990, 12-1-1991, 28-1-1991, 31-1-1991, 12-2-1991 and 8-3-1992 and that her mother-in-law and father-in-law used to join her husband in beating her and abusing her relatives. She has also stated that her mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband had not given food to her on 24/25th April, 1992. Devesh, in his statement, has stated that respondent No.1 used to beat his sister after taking liquor and her mother-in-law and father-in-law used to harass her. Ramesh has also stated in his statement that he was informed by the appellant that she was harassed by her husband and parents-in-law. He has further stated that she was asked to bring money for VCR by her husband and by the parents-in-law. From what we have pointed out, it becomes apparent that there was sufficient material for the learned Magistrate for framing a charge under section 498(A) even against respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It further appears to us that the learned Government Advocate who appear