Quashment - Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly and such power was not to be utilised as a substitute for second revision.

T.P.S.Mann, J.

1. Petitioners herein are challenging the order dated 10.4.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad whereby their revision against the order dated 4.3.2002 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Faridabad was dismissed.

2. A complaint dated 15.12.2000 (Annexure P-6) was filed by the respondents under Section 133 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Faridabad for removal of unlawful nuisance of workshop at House No. 2033, Jawahar Colony, NIT, Faridabad, being run by the present petitioners. It was alleged that on account of running of the said workshop, the complainant, his children and other inhabitants of the area were being exposed to health hazard, air pollution and noise pollution, as it was situated within the residential area. On 23.1.2001, Sub Divisional Magistrate passed a conditional order directing the present petitioners to appear on 30.1.2001 and to show-cause as to why the order for removing the nuisance be not enforced against them. In reply thereto, the petitioners filed written statement dated 10.2.2001 (Annexure P- 8), wherein they prayed that the complaint made against them was false, frivolous and vexatious and the same may kindly be dismissed. The case was, thereafter, adjourned for enabling the complaint to lead the evidence.

3. In support of his pleas, the complainant examined a number of witnesses and finally closed his evidence on 5.6.2001. The petitioners, thereafter, produced six witnesses in support of their case, besides submitting copies of sales tax, renewal certificate etc. An application was, thereafter, moved by them for spot inspection, which was accepted. After the spot inspection was completed, arguments were heard by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Finally, on 4.3.2002, the Court accepted the application under Section 133 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant-respondent and the conditional order made on 23.1.2001 was made absolute. The petitioners were directed to remove the workshop from house No. 2033, Jawahar Colony, NIT, Faridabad.

4. The aforementioned order passed by the Magistrate was challenged by the present petitioners by filing a revision, which was, however, dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide order dated 10.4.2003.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for seeking quashing of the orders passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Faridabad and Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad.

6. Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly and such power was not to be utilised as a substitute for second revision. Ordinarily, when a revision has been barred under Section 397(3) of the Code, the complainant or the accused cannot be allowed to take recourse to revision before the High Court under Section 397(1) of the Code, as it is prohibited under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. However, the High Court can entertain a petition under Section 482 of the Code, when there is serious miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of the Court or when mandatory provisions of law are not complied with and when the High Court feels that the inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised to correct the mistake committed by the revisional Court.

7. In State v. Navjot Sandhu, 2003(2) RCR(Crl.) 860 : 2003 SCC(Crl.) 1545 the power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. came up for consideration and it was held in para 29 as under :

"Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code starts with the words `Nothing in this Code. Thus the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised even when there is a bar under Section 397 or some other provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, as is set out in Satya Narayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 2001(4) RCR(Cri.) 377 (SC) : 2001(8) SCC 607, this power cannot be exercised if there is a statutory bar in some other enactment. If the order assailed is purely of an interlocutory charact