IMPORTANT POINT
If a glaring illegality or injustice stares the Court then notwithstanding prohibition contained in Section 397 (3) Cr. P.C. the Court must exercise inherent powers under Section 482. Cr. P.C. even at the instance of private party.

JUDGMENT

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. - By this petition under Section 482. Cr. P.C. the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 11-9-1995 passed by Mr. V.P. Kandpal, Metropolitan Magistrate. Delhi discharging the respondents No.2 to 5 of the offences charged under Sections 495/ 420/ 376/ 120 - B/511, I.P.C.

2. Briefly stated facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner lodged FIR No. 65/95 at the Police Station Gandhi Nagar. Delhi. Investigation pursuant to the said FIR culminated into submission of the charge - sheet under Sections 498 - A/ 406/ 376/ 420/ 495/ 120 - B/511. I.P.C. against the respondents No. 2 to 5. On submission of the charge -sheet the learned Metropolitan Magistrate launched on a process of satisfying himself that a prima facie case has been made out on the merits and passed a detailed order refusing to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 495/ 420/ 376/ 120 - B/511, I.P.C. against the respondents. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner moved the Addl. Sessions Judge. Shahdara. Delhi by filing a revision petition which was rejected vide orders dated 6-9-1996 passed in Crl. (R) No. 5/96. Not satisfied with the dismissal of the revision, the petitioner has come up before this Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C.

3. Learned Counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 5 has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition under\Section 482, Cr. P.C. According to the learned Counsel, the present petition is a second revision petition against the impugned order dated 11-9-1995 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, which is expressly barred by Section 397 (3), Cr. P.C and as such this Court cannot act as second. Revisional Court under the grab of exercising inherent powers. Reliance is placed in Deepti v. Akhil Rai and others1; Dharampal and others v. Smt. Ramshri and others2; Krishan and another v. Krishnaveni and anothers3

4. It is pertinent to mention that the inherent power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose. In Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra4 it was held: "the High Court possessed and possesses the inherent powers to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do the real and the substantial justice for the administration of which alone Courts exist".

5. In a recent Judgment of the Supreme Court in Arun Shankar Shukla v. State of U.P. and others5, It was held that inherent powers are in the nature of extra - ordinary powers to be used sparingly for achieving the object mentioned in Section 482 of the Code in cases where there is no express provision empowering the High Court to achieve the said object. In Raj Kapoor v. State6, it was held that the amplitude of the inherent powers under Section 482 remain unaffected under Section 397. In Jitender Kumar Jain v. State of Delhi and Others7, it was held that "it is true that a second revision petition does not lie before the High Court when one is dismissed by the Court of Sessions. Still the Court of Sessions is a Court subordinate to the High Court and, as such its proceedings are open to scrutiny by the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."

6. On a conspectus analysis of all these authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court, it is absolutely clear that inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. can be exercised for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse the process of the Court and this Court considers its interference absolutely necessary, in that event provision of sub - section (3) of Section 397, Cr. P.C. cannot limit or affect the exercise of inherent power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. But it has to be borne in mind that extraordinary powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C. have to be exercised sparingly and it should not be resorted to like the remedy of appeal or revision.

7. It is undisputed that the State has not filed any appropriate petition against the impugned order dated