The High Court cannot exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 138 of the CrPC when a revision petition against the same order has already been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge.

1. Ranjit Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing the order dated 30-11-1994 (Annexure P. 1), passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hissar, under Section 138 of the Code and the order dated 14-8-1995 (Annexure P. 2) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, whereby the order (Annexure P. 1) has been affirmed in revision.

2. The facts in brief are that Bhup Singh, respondent therein, moved an application under Section 133 of the Code before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Hissar, stating therein that he had been allotted a plot by the Consolidation Department in the year 1956 on which he had constructed his residential house. According to the averments in the application, there is a public thoroughfare in front of his said house which passage is being used by him for approaching his house, the drain water of his house and a drain pass through that lane and falls into the johar as the slant of the lane is towards the johar. It was alleged that Ranjit Singh, the petitioner herein. illegally encroached upon the shamlat land including the thoroughfare in question as a result of which the water collected to the extent of five to six feet due to which the wall of house upto 30 feet to 35 feet had collapsed and the rest of the wall was in danger. It was also mentioned that even earlier in the year 1984 Ranjit Singh had tried to forcibly occupy this public thoroughfare but the Panchayat had got the matter compromised and the encroachment was removed.

3. A conditional order under Section 133 of the Code was passed. Ranjit Singh appeared and controverted the allegations made in the application. According to him, there is no public thoroughfare and that his possession over the land in question has been upheld by the Civil Court vide its judgement dated 12-8-1994 and as such the said application was not sustainable in the eyes of law.

4. The parties produced documents in support of their respective plea. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate also inspected the site in dispute and thereafter confirmed the conditional order by the impugned order (Annexure P. 1).

5. Ranjit Singh, feeling aggrieved, challenged the said order by way of revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar. It was contended by him that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had not given him any opportunity to the parties to produce evidence required by Sections 137 and 138 of the Code and that he had no power to inspect the spot himself and to decide the matter thereon. After perusing the record of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the parties were given opportunity to produce evidence as the matter remained pending for about 3 months before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and that inspection report has not been made the basis of the order passed under Section 138 of the Code, and has been used to appreciate the rival contentions. With these findings, the order dated 30-11-1994, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was affirmed and the revision was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, Ranjit Singh has challenged both these orders under Section 482 of the Code.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused both the orders.

7. This petition is liable to be dismissed on a short ground that after the dismissal of his revision petition by the Additional Sessional Judge, inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot be utilised for exercise of powers which are expressly barred by the Court. It is not disputed that once a revision petition has been dismissed by the Court of Session, no second revision can be filed in the High Court. This view finds affirmation by an authoritative pronouncement of the apex Court in 4. A similar view has expressed earlier by the apex Court in Ganesh Narayan Hegde V/s. S. Bangarappa, (1995) 4 JT SC 124 : (1995 Cri LJ 2935). Since the order passed by the Sub-Divisional