Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to bypass the statutory bar on second revisions under Section 397(3) CrPC, particularly when concurrent findings establish that a dispute is civil in nature and lacks a prima facie cognizable offence.

Order

The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner-complainant assailing the order dated 02.04.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Criminal Revision No.77/2018 whereby learned Revisional Court dismissed the criminal revision and affirmed the order dated 17.03.2018 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Complaint No.247/2018, dismissing the complaint of the complainant for referring the matter for investigation to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner complainant submits that both impugned orders dated 17.03.2018 passed by learned CJM, Hanumangarh dismissing the complaint of the complainant under Sections 467, 471, 477-A, 409, 120B and 34 IPC for directing investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and 02.04.2019 passed by learned Revisional Court dismissing the revision filed against the order dated 17.03.2018, suffer from serious error of law. While sending the complaint to police, for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C, the learned Magistrate was not required to conduct a meticulous or in-depth examination of the record. The learned Magistrate was only required to see whether in the complaint, prima facie cognizable offence is committed or not. However, both learned revisional court and learned magistrate court failed to consider it and rejected the complaint in casual and arbitrary manner. Thus, impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. Learned magistrate court has wrongly observed that there is a civil dispute whereas the material available on record clearly indicates regarding commission of cognizable offence. He thus, prays that the misc. petition may be accepted and the orders impugned may be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondents opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that learned magistrate court as well as learned revisional court have passed absolutely perfect and reasoned order which do not call for any interference. Both the courts below, applied their mind to the facts and circumstances of the present case and thereafter passed the orders impugned.

Since the learned Magistrate was not satisfied regarding commission of cognizable offence and matter was found to be of civil nature, based on an agreement rightly dismissed the complaint.

I have heard and perused the material available on record.

After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the orders impugned orders, I am of the considered opinion that the orders impugned do not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The learned magistrate was not satisfied with respect to prima facie commission of cognizable offence and therefore, rightly did not refer the complaint for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Perusal of the record reveals that the complaint is a contractor and some tenders were allotted to him by BSNL. He presented some bills in the office of BSNL. However, payment of some bills could not be made to him to which, he filed the complaint for aforementioned offences before learned CJM, Hanumangarh levelling allegations against the private respondents. Prior to filing present complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the complainant submitted a complaint before the concerned police station on 05.06.2017 wherein inquiry was conducted by ASI Subhash Chandra and the complaint was found to be baseless and false. Further, as per the tender agreement, there is an arbitration clause for referring any dispute arising between the parties to Chief General Manger Telecom (CGMT, Jaipur). Thus, after due application of mind to these facts and circumstances of the present case, learned magistrate court did not refer the complaint for registration of FIR under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., which has further been upheld by learned revisional court while dismissing the revision petition.

Two courts of compete