JUDGMENT : U.C. DHYANI, J. 1. The applicant, by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 seek to quash the order dated 05.09.2013, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 64 of 2013, instituted under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 Himashu Chandola v. Gurcharan Singh & others, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar as well as the order dated 18.12.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 346 of 2013, Himanshu Chandola v. State and others. 2. The petitioner-complainant field an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 against respondents no. 2 & 3 for registering the first information report and investigating the cognizable offences. Such an application was dismissed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar vide order dated 05.09.2013 holding that the dispute is essentially civil in nature and, therefore, no cognizable offence is made out against the accused persons. 3. Aggrieved against the same, a criminal revision was preferred by the complainant. Such criminal revision was dismissed by reiterating the same that the dispute is civil in nature and the complainant can file a civil suit for recovery of money before the civil court. Aggrieved against the order dated 08.12.2013 passed by the Revisional Court, the complainant has filed present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the private respondents that the dispute is purely civil in nature. The complainant may file a civil suit, if any, against the respondents for realization of money in the civil court. It is further submitted that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the private respondents and, therefore, it will be an abuse of process of law if respondents' application under Sexton 156(3) Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is the submission of learned counsel for the private respondents that the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 is not maintainable, inasmuch as, in both the courts below, his application and revision have been dismissed. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 will be treated as 2nd Revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed two decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court to argue that even if the criminal revision filed by the applicant has been dismissed, he can very well file application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 6. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 will be treated as 2nd Revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed two decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court to argue that even if the criminal revision filed by the applicant has been dismissed, he can very well file application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 6. In Krishnan and another v. Krishnaveni and another, reported in (1997) 4 Supreme Court Cases 241, the Hon'ble Court held as below: "8. The object of Section 483 and the purpose behind conferring the Revisional power under section 397 read with Section 401, upon the High Court is to invest continuous supervisory jurisdiction so as to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularity of the procedure or to mete out justice. In addition, the inherent power of the High Court is preserved by Section 482. The power of the High Court, therefore, is very wide. However, when the High Court must exercise such power sparingly and cautiously when the Sessions Judge has simultaneously exercised Revisional power under section 397(1). However, when the High Court notices that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is but the salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process of miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its juridical process or illegality of sentence or order. 9. The inherent power of the High Court is not one conferred by the Code but one which the High Court already has in it and which is persevered by the Code. The object of Section 397 (3) is to put a bar on simultaneous revisional applications to the High Court and the court of Sessions so as to prevent unnecessary delay and multiplicity of proceeding as seen, under sub-section (3) of section 397 revisional jurisdiction can be invoked by" any person" but the code has not defined the word 'person', However, under section 11 of the IPC, 'person' includes any company or association or body of person whether incorporated or not. The word 'person' would, therefore include not only the natural person but also juridical person in whatever form designated and whether incorporated or not By implication the State stands excluded form the purview of the word 'person' for the purposes of the limiting its right to avail the revisional power of the High Court under Section 397 (!) of the code for the reason that the Sate, being the prosecutor of the offender, is enjoined to conduct prosecution on behalf of the society and to take such remedial steps as it deems proper. The Object behind criminal law is to maintain law, public order, stability as also peace and progress in the society, Generally, Private complaint under section 202 of the code are laid in respect of non-cognizance offences or when it is found that police has failed to perform its duty under Chapter XII of Code or to report as mistake of fact. In view of the principle laid down in the maxim ex debito justitiae i.e. in accordance with the requirements of justice, the prohibition under section 397 (3) on revisional power given to the High Court would not apply when the state seek s revision under section 401 . So the state is not prohibited to avail the revisional power of the high Court under section 397 (1) read with section 401 of the code." 7. In Shakuntala Devi and others v. Chamru Mahto and others, reported in (2009) 3 supreme Court Cases 310, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as below: "It is well settled that the object of the introduction of sub-section (3) in Section 397 was to prevent a second revision so as to avoid frivolous litigation, but, at the same time, the doors to the High Court to a litigant who had lost before the Sessions Judge was not completely closed and in special cases the bar under Section 397(3) could be lifted. In other words, the power of the High Court to entertain a petition under Section 482, was not subject to the prohibition under Sub-section (3) of Section 397 of the Code, and was capable of being invoked in appropriate cases. Mr. Sanyal's contention that there was a complete bar under Section 397(3) of the Code debarring the High Court from entertaining an application under Section 482 thereof does not, therefore, commend itself to us." 8. Mr. Sanyal's contention that there was a complete bar under Section 397(3) of the Code debarring the High Court from entertaining an application under Section 482 thereof does not, therefore, commend itself to us." 8. This Court, therefore, holds that present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 filed by the complainant is maintainable. 9. In para 3 of the supplementary counter affidavit, the private respondents averred as below: "That at the outset, it is submitted that the alleged agreement (annexure-3) on which the petitioner is relying upon was actually a blank Rs. 20 stamp paper that was deceptively and fraudulently got signed by the petitioner from respondent no. 2 as both respondent nos. 2 & 3 are illiterate poor farmers and does not know more than putting their respective signatures as such the same cannot be relief upon for any reason whatsoever. Secondly it is vehemently denied that any cash was ever received by respondent no. 2 on the pretext of selling of any land to the petitioner. Thirdly, it is an admitted case of the petitioner that a cheque worth Rupees two laks fifty thousand dated 20.06.2011 (Thursday) was given in the name of respondent no. 3 which got enchased in her account on 21.06.2011 (Friday), (the same is evident from annexure-1 & 2 respectively at page nos. 14 & 15 of the petition itself). It is submitted that it was well within the knowledge of the petitioner that there is no land in the name of the respondent no. 2 but in fact in the name of his father. It was thus petitioner took respondent no. 3 to her bank on 22.06.2013 (Saturday) and asked her to withdraw the amount of cheque already given to her i.e. for a sum of Rs. Two Lacs Fifty Thousands. Thus case of Rs. Two Laks fifty thousands was got withdrawn by petitioner from respondent no. 3 from her account and was taken back by the petitioner himself on 23.06.2013 was Sunday and hence the banks were closed. Annexure 2 would reveal that an amount of Cash was soon deposited by petitioner on 24.06.2013 i.e. on the next working day of his bank. Two Laks fifty thousands was got withdrawn by petitioner from respondent no. 3 from her account and was taken back by the petitioner himself on 23.06.2013 was Sunday and hence the banks were closed. Annexure 2 would reveal that an amount of Cash was soon deposited by petitioner on 24.06.2013 i.e. on the next working day of his bank. Thus it is clear that the petitioner had mala fide intentions to drag the answering respondents into a criminal litigation through his pre-designed plans to put them & their respective family members into pressure and succumb to his illegal dements. It would not be out of place to mention that petitioner was well known to the answering respondents and he knew lot about the family condition of answering respondents since long. The true copy of calendar for the month of June 2013 & the copy of the passbook of respondent no. 3 is annexed herewith as Annexure SA 1 & 2 respectively." 10. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the dishonest intention of the private respondents can be gathered from the fact that the date, on which they entered into agreement to sell, (they) were not the owners of the land in question, which in fact, was owned by one Pawan Pandey and this is precisely the reason as to how the dispute is criminal in nature as distinguished from civil dispute in which the civil suit may be filed by the complainant against the private respondents for realization of money. The Court finds substance in the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner. Otherwise, there was no cause for interference in the concurrent findings of two courts below. The matter, therefore, calls for interference. 11. The order passed by the Revisional court is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Revisional Court to pass a fresh order, after hearing complainant as well as the private respondents, in accordance with law.