Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 498 (ORI)

Souri Narayan Padhee v. R. C. Mohapatra

2002-08-07

P.K.MOHANTY

body2002
JUDGMENT P. K. MOHANTY, J. — This application appears to have been received by Hon’ble the Chief Justice through Speed Post and ultimately registered as a Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 2. This petition is against the revisional order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur rejecting the petitioner-complainant’s revision against the order of the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur rejecting his complaint in I.C.C. 68 of 1995. 3. Sri S.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the opposite par¬ties has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. at the behest of the revision petitioners. It is contended that since the peti¬tioner, who was the complainant, challenged the order of the learned Magistrate rejecting his complaint petition in a revision and the revisional application has also been rejected by an elaborate order, a second revision in the garb of an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is not maintainable in law. The learned counsel has pressed into service the decision in Deepti alias Aratirai v. Akhil Rai and others : 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 1020. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case have held that a second revision after dismissal of the first one by the Ses¬sions Judge is not maintainable and that the inherent power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. cannot be utilised for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. Reference has also been made in Smt. Namita Bose v. Deepak Kumar Bose*; 89 (2000) C.L.T. 564. In the aforesaid case, this Court held that Section 397, Cr.P.C. prohibit a second revision against the self-same order at the instance of the aggrieved petitioner. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In Hemsagar alias Hrusikesh Nag and others v. Smt. Madhabi Kuanra alias Nag and another; (1999) 17 O.C.R. 463 I have taken the view that even though there is no absolute bar for entertaining an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. at the instance of a revisional petitioner in the Court below, the High Court, even though vested with the inherent power should exercise it only in exceptional cases where it is brought to the notice of the Court that there has been a frequent violation of the rule of law or the Courts below have acted contrary to the statutory provision or it is a failure of justice. The exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. as against the revisional order at the instance of the revision petitioner, as a matter of routine in normal course is not conceived, because of the specific statutory prohibition under Section 397(3) of the Code of entertaining second revision at the instance of the revision petitioner. 4. In such view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. as against the revisional order at the instance of the revision petitioner is not maintainable in law and is to be dismissed. In view of such finding, I do not think it necessary to go into and consider the merits of the factual aspect to find out as to whether the trial Court as well as the revisional Court were right in holding that there is no prima facie case to entertain the complaint. In the result, the Criminal Misc. Case is dismissed as not maintainable. Crl. Misc. Case dismissed.