IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked to prevent abuse of process, even when a second revision petition is statutorily barred.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Sumeet Goel, J.

The present petition has been filed, under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 (hereinafter to be referred the as “Cr.P.C., 1973”), by the petitioner for quashing of order dated 26.10.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, Haryana whereby complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed & for quashing of order dated 24.11.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, Haryana whereby revision petition preferred by the petitioner (herein) against the above-said order dated 26.10.2016 passed by the Magistrate has also been dismissed.

2. The petitioner had filed a complaint against the private respondents (respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein) alleging commission of offences under Sections 323, 354, 452, 506 & 509 of IPC. It was, inter alia, alleged that one Jangsher Singh was Mahant in balmiki temple situated in village Dyalgarh, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. An FIR No.48 dated 09.04.2013 under Section 354-A of IPC at Police Station Buria was got registered by one Mukesh Kumar on the basis of false and concocted story alleging teasing of Veena Rani by the said Mahant. However, in the intervening night of 08/09.04.2013, the petitioner-complainant (herein) alongwith his family members and other villagers, when came to know about the registration of the aforesaid FIR, reached the police station to clarify that Mahant Jangsher Singh was innocent and false allegations had been leveled against him. It was further alleged that when the matter was being discussed, the accused persons (respondent Nos.1 beating the complainant and his family to 3 herein) started abusing members with stick without and any reason. It was further alleged that the private respondents (herein) caused various injuries to them and also tried to outrage the modesty of her daughter-in-law besides assaulting her. Thereafter, on 09.04.2013, the complainant and his family members got themselves medically examined at Civil Hospital, Jagadhri but no ruqa was sent by the doctors to the Police. Aggrieved by the atrocities caused by the private respondents, the complainant (petitioner herein) moved an application/representation to the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar on 09.04.2013 but no action was taken which necessitated the petitioner to file the instant complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhari. Vide order dated 26.10.2016, the Magistrate declined to summon the private respondents (herein) finding that there exist no sufficient grounds to summon the accused persons and accordingly the complaint was dismissed. The revision petition preferred by the petitioner (herein) before the Sessions Court also met the same fate and hence was dismissed vide order dated 24.11.2023. It is in this factual backdrop, the petitioner has chosen to prefer the present petition for quashing of the above said two orders.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Courts below have erred in not appreciating the facts of the case in so much as the private respondents (herein) have inflicted injuries upon the petitioner (herein); only a prima facie case was to be seen by the Court at the time of issuing of summons to the private respondents (herein) & there was sufficient evidence brought on record by the petitioner which has not been looked into appropriately by the Courts below. Therefore, it is submitted that the present petition be accepted and the impugned orders be quashed.

3.1. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents (respondent Nos.1 to 3) has raised preliminary submission that the present petition, though filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. of 1973, is not maintainable as it is, infact, a second revision petition preferred by the petitioner-complainant which is barred under Sections 397(3) and 399(2) of Cr.P.C of 1973. It has, thus, been submitted that the instant petition deserves to be rejected on account of being no