Prosecution based upon second or successive dishonour of cheque is permissible, and second revision is barred under section 397(3) of Cr.P.C., 1973.

Pankaj Bhandari, J.

Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition aggrieved by order dated 28.06.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 26.04.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kishangarh was dismissed.

2. The factual matrix of the case are that the accused-petitioner moved an application before the trial Court for dropping the proceedings on the ground that the complaint earlier presented the cheque and on dishonour gave a fax message to the petitioner. The ground urged in the application was that after giving of notice, the complaint is not entitled to re-lodge the cheque and the presentation of the complaint was beyond limitation.

3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the cheque in question was earlier presented in the bank and a notice was given, therefore, presenting the cheque for the second time and giving a fresh notice would not extend the period of limitation. It is also contended that the cheque in question was of bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and after merger with ICICI Bank, the cheque could not have been presented in bank.

4. Counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the misc. petition. His contention is that second revision is barred under section 397(3) of Cr.P.C., 1973 and since the petitioner has availed of the remedy of revision provisions of section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 cannot be invoked to circumvent the provisions contained in the code debarring filing of second revision.

5. It is also contended that the objection with regard to use of the stationary of Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. after merger with ICICI Bank was not raised before the court below and, therefore, there is no occasion for this Court to now revisit the matter on a ground which was not raised before the Courts below.

6. Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on 'MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan' (2013) 1 SCC 177, wherein, the apex Court has held that re-presentation of the cheque for the second time or successive, times is permissible and it is rather the accused who is getting the opportunity to pay to avoid prosecution, such opportunity cannot help the defaulter in getting a complete absolution from prosecution.

7. I have considered the contentions.

8. The only ground raised in the application preferred by the petitioner before the Court below for dropping the prosecution was the ground of delay in filing the complaint and that ground was urged on the point of re-lodging of the cheque after it was dishonoured by the bank.

9. As held in 'MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan (supra), prosecution based upon second or successive dishonour of cheque is permissible.

10. Both the Courts below have placed reliance on the Apex Court judgment and have rightly came to the conclusion that the complaint was not barred by limitation.

11. Second revision being barred under section 397(3) of Cr.P.C, 1973 the present case in hand is not a rarest of rare case where there is gross of abuse of process of Court or injustice would befall upon the petitioner, so as to exercise the inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973.

12. There is no force in the misc. petition, the misc. petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Stay application stands disposed of.