Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagir Singh vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 10 November, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1996CRILJ2018
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar
ORDER Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. This Criminal Misc. is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari, dated 12th of July, 1995. Vide this order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the learned Executive Magistrate, Jagadhari dated 27th of March, 1995.
2. The facts as staled in the petition are that the petitioner purchased the land in an auction from the Rehabilitation Department for Rs. 24,100/- on 23rd of July, 1991. This auction was challenged by respondent No. 3 before the Additional Settlement Officer who dismissed the appeal on 28th of October, 1991. Aggrieved by this order, respondent No. 3 filed a revision petition before the competent authority which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 24th of March, 1992. Assailing this order in a writ petition before this Court, the petitioner assailed that the orders passed by the authorities concerned were not justifiable and respondent No. 3 was the owner of the land. Respondent No. 3 filed a suit for injunction which was decreed in his favour but the learned trial Court held that respondent No. 3 was not the owner of the land in question. This order was passed on 16th of October, 1994. The respondent filed a review petition which was dismissed on 6th of January, 1992. Respondent No. 3 filed a writ petition which was also dismissed by the Court vide order dated 12th of August, 1992. The petitioner claims that he was given the possession on 6th of August, 1993. Respondent No. 3 again filed a suit and an interim injunction was passed in favour of the said respondent on 4th of October, 1994. This order of injunction in favour of the respondent was assailed by the petitioner before the learned Additional District Judge, who modified the order of the Trial Court and ordered that the status quo be maintained during the pendency of the suit.
3. The case of the petitioner further is that respondent No. 3 in connivance with the police city, Yamuna Nagar, got a calendera report initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 25th of November, 1994. On the basis of the calendera, the learned Executive Magistrate appointed Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Radaur as a receiver to look after the interest of the land and to avoid breach of peace. This order was passed by him on 27th of March, 1995. The petitioner preferred a revision against the order dated 27th of March, 1995 which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari vide his order dated 12th of July, 1995, the impugned order.
4. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the learned Executive Magistrate had no jurisdiction to attach the property under the provisions of Section 145 of the Code and to appoint a receiver. Amongst various grounds of challenge, the major attack is that the order is without jurisdiction and has been passed with the motive to prejudice the rights of the petitioner in the proceedings pending before the Civil Courts. According to the petitioner, the possession was given to him and he continued to be in possession by virtue of the order passed by the learned District Judge in appeal on 4th of October. 1994 which was an order of status quo. The counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon Annexure 'P.2' annexed to the petition by which he claims that the possession was delivered to him by the Kanungo and report to this effect was duly executed on 6th of August, 1993. This report was signed even by Mangat Ram, the respondent No. 3 to this petition.
5. In reply to this, the counsel for the respondent has argued that the present petition, in fact, is actually a 2nd revision against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the grab of the provision of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, according to the counsel for the respondent, the 2nd revision is prohibited under the provisions of Section 397(2) of the Code and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. On merits, the case of the respondents is that they had always been in possession of the land in question and had been cultivating the said land for a number of years. The counsel for the respondents has relied upon an agreement to sell duly witnessed by Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Krajuri, Block Jagadhari where the parties i.e. the present petitioner had agreed to sell the entire land in dispute to Mangat Ram and it was on 22nd of August, 1992. This agreement is Annexure RW.3/1 annexed to the reply and it is stated therein that Mangat Ram is in possession of the land in question for the last more than 40 years and the present petitioner had transferred the ownership of the said land for a consideration of Rs. 1,85,000/- to Mangat Ram. This document is stated to be witnessed by a number of residents of the village. This was confirmed in the meeting of the Gram Panchayat, Khajuri on 18th of May, 1995 and it was recorded in these minutes that Jagir Singh, the present petitioner had received a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/-. R.W. 3/3 is the order of injunction dated 4th of October, 1994 passed in favour of respondent No. 3 by the Civil Court. In this order it was held that Mangat Ram is in possession of the land and is entitled to the injunction. However, an order of status quo was passed by the learned Appellate Court as referred to above.
7. Certainly, it is clear from the above facts that the present case is one which involves the question of title and has to be decided by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and as noticed above, the proceedings before the Court are pending. At the outset, the Court has to consider, the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for respondent No. 3 with regard to the maintainability of the present petition as this question goes to the very root of the matter. There is no dispute that under Sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a 2nd revision is not permissible but the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa (1995) 2 Rec Cri R 373 (at P.2367 of AIR SCW) : (1995 AIR SCW 2364), had held as under:-
"A Second Revision does not lie under the code, and though an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not barred, the High Court cannot sit and act as the second Revision Court while exercising the powers under Section 482. This provision can be invoked only where there is an abuse of process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Learned counsel complained that the learned Single Judge has examined the matter as if he were an appellate Court and quashed the charge on that approach and that he has exceeded his jurisdiction in doing so and in interfering at an interlocutory stage."
8. From the above, it is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted that in a case where there is a jurisdictional error or manifestly injustice has been done to the parties resulting in abuse of process of law, the Court would interfere in a petition under Section 482 of the Code, while exercising its inherent powers. Therefore, each case was to be decided on its own merits keeping in view the directive of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganesh Narayan Hegde (1995 AIR SCW 2364) (supra). However, subsequently in a very recent judgment reported as Deepti @ Arati Rai v. Akhil Rai, , the Supreme Court appears to have completely prohibited the exercise of inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code for entertaining the second revision which may be prohibited under the provision of Section 397(2) of the Code. While laying down, the law in this case, the Supreme Court held as under:-
'It should have also applied its mind to the aspect 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 utilised for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code.'
9. It appears that the Supreme Court in this recent judgment have adopted the bar imposed by the apex Court in the case of Dharam Pal v. Smt. Ramshri, , where the Court held:-
'The question that falls for our consideration now is whether the High Court could have utilised the powers under Section 482 of the Code and entertained a second revision application at the instance of the 1st respondent.
...
...
It is now well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot be utilised for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. Hence the High Court had clearly erred in entertaining the second revision at the instance of 1st respondent. On this short ground itself, the impugned order of the High Court can be set aside.'
10. From the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case aforestated, it is apparent that entertainment of 2nd revision under the provisions of Section 482 of the Code is not permissible. The classes of cases which were carved out as an exception by the Supreme Court in the case of Ganesh Narayan Hegde (1995 AIR SCW 2364) appears to be not permissible any longer in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Pal (1993 Cri LJ 1049) (supra). The exercise of inherent powers to entertain a petition which in fact would be the 2nd revision as in the present case is no longer permissible and, therefore, this petition is not maintainable. The petitioner before this Court has assailed the order of the learned Executive Magistrate, Jagadhari in a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who upheld the order and, therefore, the present 2nd revision under Section 482 of the Code would not be maintainable. May be the petitioner has a remedy of assailing the said order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but the present petition cannot be held to be maintainable before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon various judgments of this Court including the judgment in Criminal Misc. No. 8879-M of 1995. These judgments will be of no help to the petitioner because the judgment of the Supreme Court in (supra) have been reported subsequently to the pronouncement of these judgments and is the law of the land presently.
11. In view of the above discussion and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arati Rai (supra), the present revision is not maintainable and is dismissed as such. I do not wish to discuss the merits of the case as I have held that the petition is not maintainable. There will be no order as to costs.