Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can only be invoked in exceptional circumstances, not as a second revision after dismissal by the Sessions Court.

JUDGMENT :

Raj Beer Singh, J.

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the summoning order dated 22.06.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Bareilly, in Complaint Case No.05 of 2023 (Anwar Ali Rizvi Vs. Amt. Khalida Anjum and another), Police Station- Qilla, District- Bareilly. The order dated 14.06.2024, passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Bareilly, in Criminal Revision No.75 of 2024, is also being impugned, whereby the revision against order dated 22.06.2023 has been dismissed.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is wife of opposite party no.2 and that no case is made out against the applicant. It was stated that the opposite party no.2 has remarried with some other lady and in that connection the applicant has made a complaint to District Inspector of School for necessary action against opposite party no.2 and thereafter the impugned complaint has been lodged by the opposite party no.2, making false and baseless allegations. It was submitted that learned revisional court has also not considered facts of the matter and position of law in correct perspective and committed error by dismissing the revision.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the application and submitted that the marriage of applicant with opposite party no.2 has taken place way back in the year 1994 and they have two grown up children. It was submitted that the applicant was continuously harassing the opposite party no.2 and earlier she has lodged a first information report against him on 31.05.2022 for offence under Sections 498A, 323, 494,, 506 IPC and after that the impugned complaint was lodged in order to harass him.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

7. At the outset it may be mentioned that by impugned order dated 22.06.2023 the applicant was summoned for offence under Sections 323, 504, 332 IPC and thereafter, the applicant has preferred a criminal revision against aforesaid order dated 22.06.2023, which has been dismissed by the Special Judge vide impugned order dated 14.06.2024. It is correct that availing of the remedy of the revision before the Sessions Judge under Section 399 CrPC does not bar a person from invoking the power of the High Court under Section 482 but it is equally true that the High Court should not act as a second Revisional Court under the garb of exercising inherent powers. While exercising its inherent powers in such a matter it must be conscious of the fact that the Sessions Judge has declined to exercise his revisory power in the matter.

8. In Deepti alias Arati Rai v. Akhil Rai & Ors, (1995) 5 SCC 751, the Apex Court held that second revision application, after dismissal of the first one by sessions court is not maintainable and that inherent power under Section 482 of the Code cannot be utilized for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. In case of Laxmi Bai Patel Vs. Shyam Kumar Patel; 2002 0 Supreme (SC) 283, the Court held:

"3. Before taking up the merits of the case, it would be proper to consider the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482Cr.P.C. of the High Court in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a case where the sessions court exercising revisional power under Section 397(3)Cr.P.C. has dismissed the revision petition by the aggrieved party, a second revision petition about acceptance of the same party is barred. The position is well- settled that in such a case power under Section