The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the provisions of Section 195 Cr. P.C. and Section 482 Cr. P.C., which limited the court's jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and invoke inherent powers.

T.H.B.Chalapathi, J.

1. This petition is filed to quash the order dated 29.4.1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur confirming the order dated 5.8.1996 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur.

2. A private complaint has been filed by the petitioner for the offences under Sections 182, 193, 196, 499 and 500 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. According to the complainant there was a civil litigation between the parties in regard to the specific performance of the agreement of sale and it is pending in the Civil Court at Hoshiarpur. In spite of the pendency of the litigation, the accused-respondents made a false complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur. After inquiry, the Superintendent of Police found the complaint of the accused- respondent false. Not staisfied with that, the accused made another complaint to the Incharge, CIA Staff, Bahadurpur and the Incharge Police Post, Bahadurpur took away the complainant (petitioner herein) and abused him in the presence of the respectables of the village. Thus the complainant filed the private complaint. During pre-charge evidence, the complainant examined five witnesses including himself and marked certain documents.

3. After considering the material, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. Hoshiarpur found that there was nothing on record to proceed against the accused either under Section 192 or Section 500 I.P.C. and the complaint under Section 182 I.P.C. is barred by virtue of Section 195 Cr. P.C. He further held that the ingredients of Section 500 I.P.C. have not been made out against the accused. Accordingly, he dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur unsuccessfully.

4. Both the Courts considered the material on record and came to the conclusion that no offence has been made out against the accused.

5. Admittedly, the offence under Section 182 I.P.C. cannot be entertained by a Magistrate since the complaint has to be made by the person to whom the false information has been given in view of the provisions of Sec. 195 Cr. P.C. In regard to the offence under Section 500 I.P.C. the learned Judicial Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge also found that the material placed by the complainant did not make out a case of the offence of defamation.

6. After going through the material on record, I do not find any ground warranting interference with the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate and the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur in the revision. Under Section 397 Cr.P.C. no second revision is maintainable. The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in order to get over the bar under Section 397 Cr.P.C. It is only in exceptaional cases where there is abuse of the process of the Court, the High Court can interfere on an application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. But on the facts of this case, I do not find any justification to invoke the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C.

7. The petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.