The judgment established the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. in preventing miscarriage of justice and the circumstances under which the court can interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts.

U.C. DHYANI, J.

1. The applicant, by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 seek to quash the order dated 05.09.2013, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 64 of 2013, instituted under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 Himashu Chandola v. Gurcharan Singh & others, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar as well as the order dated 18.12.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 346 of 2013, Himanshu Chandola v. State and others.

2. The petitioner-complainant field an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 against respondents no. 2 & 3 for registering the first information report and investigating the cognizable offences. Such an application was dismissed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar vide order dated 05.09.2013 holding that the dispute is essentially civil in nature and, therefore, no cognizable offence is made out against the accused persons.

3. Aggrieved against the same, a criminal revision was preferred by the complainant. Such criminal revision was dismissed by reiterating the same that the dispute is civil in nature and the complainant can file a civil suit for recovery of money before the civil court. Aggrieved against the order dated 08.12.2013 passed by the Revisional Court, the complainant has filed present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973

4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the private respondents that the dispute is purely civil in nature. The complainant may file a civil suit, if any, against the respondents for realization of money in the civil court. It is further submitted that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the private respondents and, therefore, it will be an abuse of process of law if respondents' application under Sexton 156(3) Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is the submission of learned counsel for the private respondents that the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 is not maintainable, inasmuch as, in both the courts below, his application and revision have been dismissed. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 will be treated as 2nd Revision.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed two decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court to argue that even if the criminal revision filed by the applicant has been dismissed, he can very well file application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973

6. In Krishnan and another v. Krishnaveni and another, reported in (1997) 4 Supreme Court Cases 241, the Hon'ble Court held as below:

"8. The object of Section 483 and the purpose behind conferring the Revisional power under section 397 read with Section 401, upon the High Court is to invest continuous supervisory jurisdiction so as to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularity of the procedure or to mete out justice. In addition, the inherent power of the High Court is preserved by Section 482. The power of the High Court, therefore, is very wide. However, when the High Court must exercise such power sparingly and cautiously when the Sessions Judge has simultaneously exercised Revisional power under section 397(1). However, when the High Court notices that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is but the salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process of miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its juridical process or illegality of sentence or order.

9. The inherent power of the High Court is not one conferred by the Code but one which the High Court already has in it and which is persevered by the Code. The object of Section 397 (3) is to put a bar on simultaneous revisional applications to the High Court and the court of Sessions so as to prevent unnecessary delay and multiplicity of proceeding as seen, under sub-section (3) of section 397 revisional jurisdiction can be invoked by" any person" but the cod