Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 1424 (RAJ)

Ram Niranjan v. K. C. Maheshwari

1999-12-01

M.A.A.KHAN

body1999
JUDGMENT : 1. This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks recalling of the order dated 21.4.97 made by this Bench in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 542/95 under section 482 Cr.P.C. By the said order, this Bench had quashed the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, dated 1.9.89, as upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar vide his order dated 26.4.95 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 35/92. 2. The recall of the order of this Court dated 21.4.97 has been prayed mainly on the ground that when the main petition was taken up for hearing, the name of the counsel of complainant-applicant was not indicated in the cause list and therefore, the applicant could not have the opportunity of having addressed his arguments to the Bench. In this behalf, the full bench decision of this Court in the case of Habu v. State of Rajasthan, 1987 RLR 1 has been referred to. It has also been mentioned in the application that no second revision of the same order was permissible as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Deepti @ R.R Rai v. Akhil Rai, JT 1995 (7) SC 175 . Along with the application, an extract of the daily cause list dated 19.3.97 in respect of Court No. 14, which was presided over by me on that day, was also filed. 3. I find that notice of date, time and place of hearing of the petition had been duly given in the cause list to the learned counsel for the parties and that Shri R.S. Rathore, Advocate had been mentioned as counsel for the present applicant, in the cause title, the name of Shri R.S. Rathore, Advocate had been mentioned along with Shri G.S. Rathore and Santosh Kaushik as appearing on behalf of the present applicant in the said case. As per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Bani Singh and others v. State of U.R. 1996 (4) SCC 720 , the notice of hearing of the revision petition under section 386 C.P.C. may be given to the counsel of the parties and not necessarily to the party. As per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Bani Singh and others v. State of U.R. 1996 (4) SCC 720 , the notice of hearing of the revision petition under section 386 C.P.C. may be given to the counsel of the parties and not necessarily to the party. Since the date, time and place of hearing of the petition filed against the present applicant had been duly notified through the cause list circulated for that date the first found of this application does not exist. 4. In so far as the applicant's grievance that the main petition was in fact .second revision petition in the garb of petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned, I am of the opinion that this Court, after having discussed that point in its impugned order dated 21.4.97, had come to the conclusion that a petition filed by the non-applicant was maintainable under section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. No doubt, on the basis of the authority in the case of Deepti @ Aarati Rai v. Akhil Rai and others, JT 1995 (7) SC 175 , Shri M.K. Sharma, learned counsel submitted that since the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance of offence under section 211 IPC against the contesting respondents in this case had been revised by the learned Sessions Judge in exercise of his powers under section 397(1) Cr.P.C. and therefore, revision of the same order of the Magistrate was not permissible in law due to bar created by Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. and hence, a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be maintained, but I find that such a declaration was made by the Apex Court on the facts of that case. In the subsequent decision of Krishnan v. Krishnaveni and another , the Apex Court had considered the ratio in Deepti's case and after having considered other cases on the same point, in para 14 it was held that though revision before the High Court under sub-section (1) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. is prohibited by sub-section (3) thereof, the inherent powers of the High Court are still available under section 482 of the Code and as it is paramount power of continuance superintendence of the High Court under section 483 Cr.RC. the High Court would be justified in interfering with an order leading to miscarriage of justice and in setting aside orders of the courts below. the High Court would be justified in interfering with an order leading to miscarriage of justice and in setting aside orders of the courts below. It is thus clear that the powers of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. are not controlled or curtailed by the provisions of Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. even in such case in which the Sessions Judge, in exercise of his powers under section 397, which powers are concurrent with the powers of this Court under that provision, has revised the order of the learned Magistrate. If a case of abuse of the process of the court/law or miscarriage of justice to the aggrieved party is made out in a case where the Sessions Judge has upheld the order of the Magistrate after exercising his powers under section 397(1) Cr.P.C. this Court can still exercise its inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. The basis of the exercise of the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. is the abuse of the process of the court or injustice occasioned to a party. This basis is quite independent of the basis required for exercise of the revisional powers under section 397(1) Cr.P.C. In that sense of the matter, the decision in the case of Deepti @ Aarati Rai does not advance the cause of the applicant. 6. With a view to satisfy myself as to whether any injustice was caused to the applicant while deciding the petition of the respondents, in his and his counsel's absence, I heard the learned counsel for the parties on merits even. I find that this Court had decided the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. on its own merits, after having thoroughly examined the grievance of the petitioner therein with reference to his complaint against the abuse of the process of the court of the learned Magistrate and his grievance of injustice having been caused to him. It was held that allowing the order of the learned Magistrate to remain in force, amounted to abuse of the process of the court, apart from causing miscarriage of justice. The court had thus decided the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. on its own merit. 7. It was held that allowing the order of the learned Magistrate to remain in force, amounted to abuse of the process of the court, apart from causing miscarriage of justice. The court had thus decided the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. on its own merit. 7. It is the settled position of law that once a judgment has been pronounced by the High Court, either in exercise of its appellate or its revisional jurisdiction, no review or revision can be entertained against that judgment/order AIR 1979 SC 87 , State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Agarwala . Section 362 Cr.P.C. expressly provides that no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same, except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error, save as otherwise provided by the Code. Section 482 Cr.RC. enables the High Court to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. The inherent powers of the High Court are as much controlled by the principle and precedents as are its express powers by the statute. If a matter is covered by an express letter of law, the Court cannot give a go-bye to the statutory provision and instead evolve a new provision in the garb of inherent jurisdiction. Therefore, review of an order already made on merit cannot be permitted even in exercise of powers of the Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. AIR 1990 SC 1605 Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee . It is thus clear that in view of the provisions contained in Section 362 Cr.RC. the High Court has no jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. to alter its earlier judgment, which was rendered by it after having considered the merits of the case AIR 1994 SC 1544 , Moti Lal v. State Of M.P. 8. In view of the discussion made here in above, I hold that the present petition is not maintainable in law and is accordingly dismissed.Petition dismissed as not maintainable.