The judgment established the availability of inherent power of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and emphasized the necessity for the magistrate to apply their mind before passing the summoning order in a criminal case.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned summoning order dated 29.07.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First, Gonda in Criminal Complaint No. 16 of 2015 (Jitendra Singh Vs. Ramasharan Pandey & others), Police Station Paraspur, District Gonda as well as against the order dated 04.7.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act) Gonda in Criminal Revision No. 331 of 2015, (Ramasharan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another) along with the criminal proceedings of Criminal complaint no. 16 of 2015 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First, Gonda.

3. Shri Anoop Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent and learned AGA have raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present application under Section 482 against the revisional order which is also under challenge.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the summoning order was passed without application of mind. It is further submitted that by the impugned summoning order all the applicants were summoned under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 406 of IPC whereas the offence under Section 406 has been alleged against Dev Sharna Pandey and Lakshmi Sharan Pandey i.e. applicant nos.2 and 3 respectively in the present application. There is no allegation or accusation under Section 406 of IPC against the applicant nos. 1,4,5 and 6 and the same could be seen from the statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C., even then the summons have been issued against the applicant nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 under Section 406 IPC also.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they will cooperate and participate in the proceedings before the learned trial court. It is also undertaken that they will not seek any adjournment.

6. On the other hand, learned AGA and the learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that in the complaint there are allegations against all the applicants and no specific name has been taken and it could only be seen during trial.

7. After hearing the respective parties and perusing the record, it is found that a person aggrieved from a revisional order has a remedy to challenge it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. is to prevent the second revision so as to avoid the frivolous litigation whereas in the present case, it is not a second revision preferred by the applicants rather it is an application challenging the revisional order, which is not barred.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Jain Vs. State of Delhi and others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 770 has held that the powers under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are distinguishable and separate. Against the revisional order, scrutiny can be done by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2009 2 SCC 370 has held that even in cases where a second revision before the High Court after dismissal of first one by Sessions Judge is barred under Section 397 (3) Cr.P.C.but the inherent power of the Court is available.The power of the High Court can be exercised not only in terms of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. but also in terms of Section 483 thereof.

10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakuntala Devi and others Vs. Chamru Mahto and another reported in 2009 3 SCC 310 has held that the power of the High Court to entertain a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was not subject to the prohibition under Sub Section 3 of Section 397 Cr.P.C. and the doors to the High Court to a litigant who had lost before the Sessions Judge were not completely closed.

11. In the light of the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the present application under Section 482 is maintainable against the revi