Pratap And 2 Ors. vs Ratan Lal And Anr. on 4 February, 1985
4. On behalf of the respondent it is contended that there is complete bar for filing a second revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the provision of Section 482 Cr.PC cannot be invoked so as to circumvent the law. It is submitted that under subsection (2) of Section 397 Cr.PC there is total prohibition against a revision petition of an interlocutory order and in Sub-section (3) of Section 397 Cr.PC there is further prohibition for filing a revision petition by the same party who has filed it before the High Court or the Court of Sessions. It is submitted that it was choice of the petitioner to have invoked the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court or could have come straight to this court under Section 397 Cr.PC for challenging the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, but not having approached the Sessions Judge where he failed to pursuade the Sessions Judge to reverse the order he could not have maintained a revision and if he could not have done so, then his filing an application under Section 482 Cr.PC is only calculated to frustrate the bar contained in Section 397(3) Cr.PC. In supported of his contention the learned counsel has relied on Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh and Anr. , Chandra Kala Devi v. The State of Bihar and Anr. 1980 Cr.LJ 328, Dassu v. Smt. Manitra 1976 Cr.LJ 1221, Shariffuddin Haji Noor Baksh v. State 1977 Cr.LJ 1054 Shankara Rupa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1978 Cr.LJ (NOC) 66, M. Chandran v. B. Jagadamma and Anr. 1982 Cr.LJ 100, Soni and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. 1983 (II) Crimes 508 and Swetamber Jain Sampraday v. Digamber Apnay and Ors. 1981 WLN 471. Learned counsel also submits that the two courts after carefully examining the report have come to the conclusion that there is a serious dispute about the possession and have also come to the finding that there is imminent danger of the breach of peace, therefore, thought it proper to order the appointment of a receiver and, therefore, no interference should be made. It is further submitted that an appraisal of the documents cannot be made while considering an application under Section 482 Cr.PC because their is neither abuse of the process of the court nor an interference is called so to ensure the meeting of the ends of justice.