The court emphasized that the revision petition was not maintainable as the order allowing or disallowing additional evidence was considered an interlocutory order, and the inherent powers of the High Court could not be invoked except in rare cases of abuse of the process of the Court.

P.Chowdhri, J.

1. This revision petition raises two questions : One whether it is maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, two, whether inherent powers of this Court can be invoked to grant relief to the petitioner.

The revision petitioner filed a complaint under sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against his son-in-law, respondent herein, as far back as 11th November, 1983. His case was that he advertised for a suitable match for his daughter in the Tribune dated 6.3-1983. Amongst others, the respondent sent his particulars. Marriage took place in which the petitioner allegedly spent Rs. 80,000/-. The marriage has not so far been a success. Later on it was discovered that the respondent bad made a false representation to the petitioner in respect of his age, his previous marital status viz. that he was a divorcee and his salary.

2. The trial concluded on 2.9.1987 after recording defence evidence. At the request of counsel for the complainant two days time was granted for making an application under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the application filed on 8 9.1987, the petitioner wanted to produce additional evidence to prove that he had in fact, advertised in the Tribune dated 6.3 1983 for a match for his daughter. The application was opposed. By a detailed order dated 12.9 1987, the learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the application. The present revision is directed against that order.

3. Both the questions stated in the beginning of this order stand covered. This Court in Chander Bhan v. State of Haryana, 1979 C.L.R. 253, held :

(a) that order allowing or disallowing additional evidence amounted to an interlocutory order and revision there against was barred in view of the provisions of section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal procedure; and

(b) that inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not be ordinarily invoked for setting aside such an order except in rarest cases of the abuse of the process of the Court.

4. In coming to the above conclusion. reliance was placed on Amar Nath and others v. State of Haryana and others, A.I.R. 1977 Supreme Court 2185, in which the Supreme Court observed :

"A harmonious construction of Ss. 397 and 482 would lead to the irresistible conclusion that where a particular order is expressly barred under S. 397 (2) and cannot be the subject of revision by the High Court, then to such a case the provisions of S. 482 would not apply. It is well settled that the inherent powers of the Court can ordinarily be exercised when there is no express provision on the subject-matter. Where there is an express provision, barring a particular remedy, the Court cannot resort to the exercise of inherent powers".

The same view was reiterated by this Court recently in Brij Mohan v. State of Haryana and another, 1987(2) C.L.R. 550.

5 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with considerable persistence that the complainant may be given just one opportunity to produce the additional evidence especially to avoid miscarriage of justice I am not impressed by this argument. It is not a question of giving one or more opportunity to produce evidence; the real question is whether he has made out a case for accepting the revision. It cannot be disputed that the learned Magistrate had jurisdiction to allow or disallow the application under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the exercise of jurisdiction suffered from any infirmity. That being so, the petition has no merit.

6. It may be observed that an impression appears to have been created not without a misconceived anxiety on the part of the petitioner himself, that his complaint would fail without proving the advertisement. There is hardly any warrant for this supposition as the petitioner has exhibited the reply alleged to have been sent by the