Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:939 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26321 of 2024 Applicant :- Ram Kumar And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Aslam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against summoning order dated 20.05.2023 passed in Complaint Case No.69 of 2023, under Section 323, 352, 506, 427 I.P.C., P.S. Gangoh, District Saharanpuer, as well as against order dated 16.05.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No.392 of 2023, whereby the revision against summoning order has been dismissed.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that both the parties are cousin and there was some dispute over partition between them. No such incident has taken place, as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has not sustained any injury. There are contradictions in the statement of complainant and statements of witnesses. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in view of the statement of complainant, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., as well as in the statements of witnesses, recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case is made out against the applicants.It was also stated that the revision against summoning order has already been dismissed by the Session Court.

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

6. At the outset it may be mentioned that by impugned order dated 20.05.2023 applicants have been summoned to face the trial for the aforesaid offences. The applicants have preferred a criminal revision against aforesaid order dated 20.05.2023, which has been dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, vide impugned order dated 16.05.2024. 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.

7. In Deepti aliasArati 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 482Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court in rare cases and in exceptional circumstances where the court finds that permitting the impugned order to remain undisturbed will amount to abuse of process of the court and will result in failure of justice."

8. Similarly, in the case of Dharampal & Ors. v. Ramshri; 1993 (1) SCC 435, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that-

" .... Section 397(3) bars a second revision application by the same party. It is now well-settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot be utilized for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the C