Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 767 (AP)

MIRAPA SURESH KUMAR v. State Of A. P.

2000-10-10

T.CH.SURYA RAO

body2000
T. SURYA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner assails the order dated 26-11-1999 passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, in Crl. RP No. 33 of 1999. ( 2 ) THE respondents herein filed a petition seeking maintenance under section 125 Cr. PC, in MC No. 11 of 1998 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, s. Kota. The learned Magistrate after conducting enquiry directed that maintenance to be paid to the petitioner in MC No. 11 of 1998 by the respondent therein, who is the petitioner herein. Having been aggrieved by the said order granting maintenance, the petitioner approached the Sessions court as aforesaid in Crl. RP No. 33 of 1999. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, vizianagaram, found that there had been no specific finding in regard to neglect or refusal to maintain, which in his view gives necessary jurisdiction to the Court for awarding maintenance and, therefore, he allowed the revision petition and remitted the matter back to the Court of the Judicial magistrate of First Class, S. Kota, for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to both sides. Challenging the same invoking section 482 Cr. PC, the petitioner filed the present application. ( 3 ) THE only grievance of the petitioner, as can be seen from the contention of the learned Counsel, seems to be that the learned Additional Sessions Judge having observed in his order that nothing could be culled out from the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 as regards the essential finding of "neglect or refusal to maintain" ought not to have remitted the matter back for fresh disposal and ought to have proceeded to dispose of the revision petition by himself. The apprehension of the petitioner seems to be that under the order passed by the additional Sessions Judge the trial Court might permit the parties to adduce fresh evidence, which is otherwise not permissible. After having gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge, I do not think that there is any room for such apprehension. The order does not speak that the parties be permitted to adduce fresh evidence. After having gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge, I do not think that there is any room for such apprehension. The order does not speak that the parties be permitted to adduce fresh evidence. On the other hand, the Court directed to dispose of the matter afresh on merits by giving specific finding as regards essential ingredients of "neglect or refusal to maintain", when the trial Court cannot travel beyond the scope of the order passed by the superior Court while remitting the matter back for fresh disposal. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondents herein questioned the maintainability of the petition. Section 397 cr. PC, is the relevant provision, which deals with the revisional jurisdiction of the High court or as the case may be Sessions Court. Sub-section (3) thereof expressly inhibits any further proceeding by the party, who invoked the revisional jurisdiction. Sub-section (3) says that if an application, under this Section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them and no revision is maintainable by a party, who invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Court. In this case, the petitioner approached this Court under section 482 Cr. PC, clutching at the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. The Apex court in Dharampal and others v. Ramshri (SMT) and others, (1993) 1 SCC 435 and deepti @ Arati Rai v. Akhil Rai and others, (1995) 5 SCC 751 , has categorically held that inherent powers cannot be invoked for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Court. What is inhibited by one or the other provisions in the Code cannot now be circumvented by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. PC, is the essence of both the judgments. In that view of the matter, the present application is not maintainable, since the petitioner who filed revision petition under Section 397 Cr. PC, before the Sessions Court cannot maintain a second revision application in view of the bar engrafted under sub-section (3) of section 397. In the light of the express bar under sub-section (3) of the Section 397 cr. PC, he cannot also maintain application under Section 482 Cr. PC, before the Sessions Court cannot maintain a second revision application in view of the bar engrafted under sub-section (3) of section 397. In the light of the express bar under sub-section (3) of the Section 397 cr. PC, he cannot also maintain application under Section 482 Cr. PC, as it amounts to circumvent under the said provision. ( 5 ) IN that view of the matter, the petition is dismissed.