Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

petition is not maintainable under Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. In the afore noted decisions it was held that the second revision petition, after dismissal of the first one by the Sessions Court, cannot be entertained by the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of Crpc. The Apex Court in Rajan Kumar Machananda case(supra) held that where a revision petition is dismissed by the Sessions Court, a second revision would not lie to the High Court and the statutory bar cannot be overcome by the High Court. If that was to be allowed each revision application not permitted under Section 397(3) of the Code could be considered as one under Section

482. The Apex Court in Dharampal case (supra) held that 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 Code.

16. In reply to the above submission, Mr. K. Agarwala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the ratio laid down in Rajan Kumar Machananda case (supra) and Dharampal case (supra) has been overruled by a larger Bench of the Apex Court (three Judges) in Krishnan and Anr. Vs. Krishnaveni and Anr. , (1997) 4 SCC 241 and , later on the Apex Court , followed it in Shakuntala Devi and Ors. Vs. Chamru Mahto and Anr. (2009) 3 SCC 310. From the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above cases, it clear that second revision petition by the same petitioner is barred by Section 397 (3) of CrPc, but the same petitioner is not barred from approaching the High Court for correcting the palpable errors committed by the Court below. Though second revision before the High Court under sub section (1) of Section 397 is prohibited by sub section (3) thereof, inherent power of the High Court is still available under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as it is paramount power of continuous superintendence of the High Court .Therefore, the High Court would be justified in interfering with the order leading to miscarriage of justice and in setting aside such orders of the Courts below.

19. In view of the above discussion, keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Krishnan case (supra) and Shakuntala Devi's case (supra), I find that inherent power of the High Court can be exercised to prevent the failure of justice or prevent misuse of power or to correct irregularities committed by inferior criminal courts. However, when Sessions Judge had already exercised the jurisdiction, the High Court would sparingly and cautiously must exercise powers of revision under Section 482 CrPC. In the light of the above discussion, it would be appropriate for this Court to see, as to whether there are substantial slips and errors, in the orders passed by the learned Court below. Whether the orders have been passed by the learned Courts below in breach of the recommended procedure and manner,. Whether the learned Courts below, while drawing up the preliminary proceeding under Section 145 of Crpc and in passing the impugned order failed to decide as to whether the dispute is a civil dispute in between the parties .

21. On careful consideration of the materials on record it is seen that challenge to the question of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and in the instant case, I find that the learned Courts below failed to consider and examine all relevant aspects and fundamental requirements of the provision of Section 145 Cr.P.C ,before deriving satisfaction, regarding existence of dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace in the locality concerning any land or water or boundaries thereof. Therefore, the impugned order warrants interference by this Court.