Satyavrat Verma, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 21.01.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah in Cr. Revision No. 238 of 2014 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1121-C of 2010, whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioners against the order dated 26.06.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bettiah in Trial No. 2115 of 2014 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1121-C of 2010.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant has filed Complaint Case No. 1121-C of 2010 against the petitioners in which cognizance was taken under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, the petitioners were taken into custody and after their release they filed an application dated 03.01.2014 under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. and the same came to be rejected by order dated 26.06.2014 against which the petitioners preferred the instant Cr. Revision No. 238 of 2014 before the learned Sessions Judge, who also affirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate whereby their application seeking discharge under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. was rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the revisional order is bad on the ground that the same did not take into consideration the fact that no case under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the petitioners in the nature of evidence brought on record by the complainant during the course of inquiry and that petitioners came to be implicated on account of previous enmity.

5. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the present quashing application is nothing but a second revision which is barred under Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C. Learned A.P.P. further relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajan Kumar Machananda vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1990 Supp SCC 132 to submit that in the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after recording the facts, had observed that a second revision did not lie at the instance of the State in the High Court in view of the provisions of Section 397(3) of Cr.P.C. Obviously, to avoid this bar, the application moved by the State before the High Court was stated to be under Section 482 Cr.P.C., asking for exercise of inherent powers. In exercise of that power, the High Court has reversed the order of the Magistrate as affirmed by the Sessions Judge. The question for consideration is as to whether the bar under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. should have been taken note of to reject the revision at the instance of the State Government or action taken by the High Court in exercise of its inherent power has to be sustained. It is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the State that the move before the High Court was really on application for revision of the order of the Magistrate releasing the truck. That is exactly what is prohibited under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. 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. 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. We are satisfied that this is a case where High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision.

6. Learned A.P.P. further submits that when a quashing application is filed challenging the order of revision passed by the Sessions Judge, in that event, this Court has to be cautioned and circumspect, for the reason that the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is basically a second revision which is barred under Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C.