A court cannot entertain a successive revision petition by the same person under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C., and parties should seek alternative remedies such as civil suits to resolve private disputes.

This revision is directed against the concurrent findings or fact of the courts below. The proceedings u/s. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, registered as Misc. Case No. 495 in 80, was dropped by the Executive Magistrate by order da­ted 5.1.1981.

2. The relevant facts are that the 1st party petitioner filed an application dated 16.12.1980 before the Executive Magistrate, Gauhati claiming that he was the owner of Stall No. 14 A in New Market, Gauhati which was let out to the second pa­rty as a tenant. The second party temporary vacated the room for a period of 6 months but after sometime re-occupied it and started his shop without obtaining permission from the first party-petitioner. The First party-petitioner was afraid of the second party as he was a quarrelsome person. He claimed that there was apprehension of breach of peace, in respect of the possession of the shop room. The application was forwarded to the police for inquiry and report. The police submitted a report stating that there was apprehension of breach of peace between the parties. Accordingly, learned Magistrate drew up a proceed­ing under sec. 145(1) Cr. P. C. and directed both the parties to file written statement and adduce evidence or documents in sup­port of their respective claim of possession over the disputed room. Meanwhile the learned Magistrate directed the police to attach the room u/s. 146 Cr. P. C. On 5.1.81 learned Executive Magistrate upon heating both the parties dropped the proceed­ings and held that it was a civil dispute. In other words, learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to seek relief in civil court. Being aggrieved the first party-petitioner preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge, Kamrup at Gauhati.

3. Learned Judge discussed all the points urged and upheld the order dropping the proceedings. It is a speaking order. Learned Judge has considered all aspects of the matter. I find that the proceeding which was drawn in 1980 was dropped in 1981 and the order was affirmed in 1981. It has come up for disposal to-day before this Court.

4. The first question is whether this court can entertain this revision and/or whether the petitioner is competent to pre­fer this revision. Section 397(2) of the Code lays does that if an application u/s. 397 i.e. an application for exercising revision-al power, has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them. In view of the restriction imposed u/s. 397(3) this Court is incompetent to entertain the second revision petition filed by the petitioner who was the petitioner in the revision before the learned Sessions Judge. As such, in my opinion, this Court is not compe­tent to entertain the present revision. Sec. 399(3) prohibits the Court to entertain successive revision petition by the same party. Section 399(3) reads as follows :

"399. * * *

(3) Where any application for revision is made by or on behalf of any person before the Sessions Judge, the decision of the Sessions Judge thereon in relation to such person shall be final and no further proceeding by way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court''.

(Emphasis supplied)

It is thus seen that where any application for revision is made by or on behalf of any person before the Sessions Judge, the decision of the Sessions Judge thereon is final. It is furt­her stated in the sub-section that the revisionist cannot file another revision to the High Court against the final order of the Sessions Court. Under these circumstances this court cannot entertain this petition u/s. 399(3) and the party is disentitled to file the petition u/s. 397(3) of 'the Code'. On this ground alone the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Further, in the instant case the petitioner has an alte­rnative remedy to institute a civil suit and get the relief, if he is so advised. Instead of filing a civil suit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document