JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner, through the medium of this petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘CrPC’) seeks setting aside order dated 03.05.2023 passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu (for short ‘CJM’) in complaint No.29 filed under Negotiable Instrument Act (for short ‘the NIA’) titled Sudha Sharma v. Shashi Mahajan, whereby application for submitting a list of witnesses and depositing of their diet expenses as directed in terms of interim order dated 25.10.2019 was dismissed and a cost to the tune of Rs.4,000/- was imposed. The petitioner also seeks quashment of order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the court of learned Principal Session Judge Jammu (for short ‘Revisional Court’) in Criminal Revision No. 75/2023 titled Shashi Mahajan V. Sudha Sharma whereby revision against the order dated 03.05.2023 passed by the learned CJM was dismissed. 2. The petitioner has pleaded that a highly motivated and baseless complaint under Section 138 of the NIA was filed by the respondent against the petitioner before court of learned CJM, Jammu, with respect to Cheque No.062037 dated 14.11.2007 for an amount of Rs.25.00 lakhs issued by the petitioner which was dishonoured due to ‘funds insufficient’; that the petitioner has been contesting the petition before the trial court, inter alia, on the ground that he had already paid the amount of Cheque to the respondent/complainant on 30.01.2008 at PNB Branch Shalamar, Jammu in presence of two persons Suraj Parkash and Balbir Singh, where the petitioner/accused deposited the said amount in her bank account and she has suppressed this fact in her complaint; that both the parties adduced their evidence in support of their respective claims and the learned Magistrate vide order dated 28.01.2011 closed the evidence of the petitioner/accused and posted the case for arguments, however, the petitioner feeling aggrieved challenged the order dated 28.01.2011 before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu who directed the learned Magistrate to provide two more opportunities to the petitioner/accused for leading the evidence, failing which the learned Magistrate was given liberty to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. 3. Petitioner claimed to have filed two applications before the learned Magistrate, first moved to place on record a receipt dated 30.01.2008 and another was filed for re-examination and cross-examination of the respondent/complaint and in the meanwhile petitioner examined one witness on 25.03.2011. 4. 3. Petitioner claimed to have filed two applications before the learned Magistrate, first moved to place on record a receipt dated 30.01.2008 and another was filed for re-examination and cross-examination of the respondent/complaint and in the meanwhile petitioner examined one witness on 25.03.2011. 4. It is alleged that the petitioner/accused on 06.02.2020 moved application seeking directions to the PNB Branch Shalamar Road, Jammu to furnish the bank statement of the account of the petitioner/accused w.e.f 30.01.2008 to 28.02.2008 and also grant time to the petitioner/accused to lead evidence on the ground that when the order dated 25.10.2019 was passed, the petitioner/accused could not file the list of witnesses and could not deposit the diet expenses within the time granted by the learned Magistrate due to strikes and also that the petitioner had fallen seriously ill suffering from several ailments of cardiology and partial disablement due to brain stroke; that the learned Magistrate considered the application filed by the petitioner on 06.02.2020 and vide order dated 03.05.2023, dismissed the same imposing a cost of Rs.4,000/- upon the petitioner/accused. It was alleged that by the impugned order dated 03.05.2023, learned Magistrate had eroded the sanctity of order dated 25.10.2019 and 06.02.2020 completely and virtually the order dated 25.10.2019 has been recalled/reviewed which is not permissible under the criminal jurisprudence. 5. It has been alleged that the trial court as well as revisional court have both committed illegality by passing the impugned orders closing the evidence of the petitioner/accused in the case against the principles of the criminal jurisprudence and prayed that this petition be allowed and the impugned orders be set aside; with further prayer that the learned CJM be directed to accept the list of witnesses and their diet expenses. 6. Pursuant to notice, the respondent appeared through Mr. D. S. Saini, Advocate and case was taken up for final consideration. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused argued that the learned Magistrate vide order dated 19.04.2011 again closed the evidence of the petitioner/accused; that the petitioner/accused thereafter filed an application under Section 540 CrPC for summoning the respondent for re-examination and cross examination which was dismissed by learned Magistrate vide order dated 04.08.2011; that he moved another application under Section 540 CrPC submitting the admitted signatures of the respondent to the handwriting expert which application was also dismissed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 01.10.2012. Having been aggrieved of this order, the petitioner filed a criminal revision before the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge Jammu which was dismissed by him vide order dated 19.07.2013; that the petitioner thereafter approached this court through the medium of a petition under Section 561-A CrPC (akin to Section 482 CrPC) No.206/2013 which was finally dismissed by this court on the ground that same has not been pressed by the petitioner/accused; that the petitioner/accused then filed an application before the learned Magistrate seeking direction to the bank authorities of Punjab National Bank, Shalamar Road, Jammu to furnish the bank statement of the account of the respondent/complainant for the period 30.01.2008 to 28.02.2008 and also to grant time to the petitioner/accused to lead evidence in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case; that this application was decided by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 25.10.2019 allowing the application followed by another order dated 06.02.2020 whereby it was directed that Manager, PNB and Manager Citizen Cooperative Bank shall be called through the process of the court, subject to deposit of their diet expenses @ Rs.1,000/- each, by the petitioner/accused. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has vehemently argued that the petitioner despite being allowed to examine two bank officials of Punjab National Bank (PNB) and Citizen’s Cooperative Bank were not allowed to be examined by the petitioner/accused by the trial court and the closing of the evidence by the trial court without examining those witnesses amounted to review of its own orders which is not permissible under the criminal law. He has further argued that closing of the evidence to the peril of the petitioner/accused is an abuse of the process of court, as the litigants are to be allowed time to prove their case and the trial court unmindful of the basic principle of the criminal law has closed the evidence of the petitioner/accused and also imposed a cost of Rs.4,000/-. He has further argued that the difficulty that the petitioner was for not examining the witness within the stipulated time was that due to COVID-19 he could not examine the witnesses within time and also he had suffered some ailments which prevented him to lead evidence in time. He has further argued that the difficulty that the petitioner was for not examining the witness within the stipulated time was that due to COVID-19 he could not examine the witnesses within time and also he had suffered some ailments which prevented him to lead evidence in time. He further argued that the granting of one more opportunity to examine the 2/3 witnesses in the court, heavens would not have fallen, and rather, the ends of justice would have been served. It was prayed that since the trial court has fallen in error which amounted to abuse of process of court by passing the impugned order which has also been illegally upheld by the revisional court be quashed. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has vehemently argued that the petition filed by the petitioner/accused is not maintainable for the reason that he has filed this second revision petition under the garb of Section 482 CrPC, after availing the remedy of revision before the Sessions Court. He has further argued that the Hon’ble Apex Court and various High Courts including this High Court have laid down that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC of the Court cannot be invoked for exercising powers, which are exclusively barred by the Code (CrPC) and since this court had a concurrent jurisdiction of revision with the Sessions Court and the remedy of revision has been exercised by the petitioner/accused before the Sessions Court, he cannot under the garb of this petition under Section 482 CrPC, maintain this second revision petition against the order passed by the Magistrate which has been upheld by the Sessions Court. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent has also argued that the respondent/complainant who is a senior citizen, has been dragged by the petitioner/accused in the petition under Section 138 NIA which had been filed by her on 06.06.2008; that the complainant had completed her evidence and thereafter the respondent as accused was directed to lead evidence. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent has also argued that the respondent/complainant who is a senior citizen, has been dragged by the petitioner/accused in the petition under Section 138 NIA which had been filed by her on 06.06.2008; that the complainant had completed her evidence and thereafter the respondent as accused was directed to lead evidence. The accused-petitioner herein however, could examine only one witness and his evidence came to be closed in the year 2011; that when his evidence was closed the petitioner/accused at his own leisure filed revision petition against closing of the evidence before the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge Jammu, who had given him two opportunities to lead the evidence, however, the petitioner/accused could examine only one witness who happens to be his wife; and thus, only two witnesses were examined and his evidence again came to be closed on 19.04.2011; he further argued that the petitioner/accused in his third attempt filed an application under Section 540 CrPC, with a prayer that Bank officials be allowed to be examined, however, he could not examine those witnesses within the prescribed period as he had failed to deposit their diet expenses and his evidence was again ordered to be closed against which he filed revision petition which was dismissed and now by filing this petition the petitioner/ accused is making fourth attempt seeking permission to lead fresh evidence. He has further argued that the petitioner/ accused in a period spanning over 12 years could not complete the evidence by which he has made a mockery of the criminal justice system and has been subjected the respondent/complainant to a great hardship in her advanced stage of age who is stated to be a retired teacher. 11. Heard, perused and considered. 12. The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was enacted to define and amend the law relating to promissory notes, bills of exchange and cheques. This Act was amended in 2002 aimed at speedy disposal of cases relating to the offence of dishonoring of cheques, through their summary trial as well as making them compoundable, punishment provided under Section 138 was enhanced from one year to two years and these legislative reforms were aimed at encouraging the use of cheques and enhancing the credibility of the instruments so that the normal business transactions and settlement of liabilities could be ensured. All offences under this Act, have to be tried summarily in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 143(3) provides that every trial under this Section shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible and an endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint. 13. It is very astonishing that this case has lingered on since its filing in the year 2008 to this date in 2023 awaiting its conclusion. The respondent/complainant after filing of the complaint led her evidence and the petitioner as accused was also given sufficient time to lead evidence, however, the petitioner/ accused examined only one witness and his evidence came to be closed again on 28.01.2011. The petitioner/accused filed revision petition against closure of his evidence by the learned Magistrate and the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Jammu, disposed of the revision petition granting the petitioner/accused two more opportunities to produce his evidence failing which the Magistrate was directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The petitioner/accused moved fresh applications to the learned Magistrate seeking re-examination/cross-examination of the respondent/complainant and also examined one witness on 25.03.2011 and the learned Magistrate following the orders passed by the revisional court again closed the evidence of the petitioner/accused on 19.04.2011. The petitioner/accused was not satisfied and further moved application under Section 540 CrPC for summoning the respondent/complainant for her re-examination/cross-examination on 04.08.2011 which however was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on 01.10.2012; the petitioner/ accused filed the revision petition against this order and this order was also assailed in a criminal revision petition before Sessions Court Jammu which was dismissed by the Principal Sessions Judge Jammu on 19.07.2013. The petitioner/accused again approached this court under Section 561-A CrPC by filing petition which was, however, dismissed as not pressed. Again moved application before learned Magistrate seeking bank statement of the account of the respondent/complainant from the PNB Jammu which was allowed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 25.10.2019 followed by another order dated 06.02.2020 whereby Managers of the PNB and Citizens Cooperative Bank were ordered to be called through the process of the court and then he moved application seeking direction for production of statement of account of the respondent/complainant. The learned Magistrate however vide order dated 03.05.2023 dismissed the applications moved by the petitioner/accused on 06.02.2020 imposing costs of Rs.4,000/-. 14. The learned Magistrate however vide order dated 03.05.2023 dismissed the applications moved by the petitioner/accused on 06.02.2020 imposing costs of Rs.4,000/-. 14. The petitioner/accused, in a summary nature of cases, has not only involved the respondent/complainant in a web of litigation dragging the complaint for over a period of 15 years. The petitioner/accused has also taken for a ride not only the trial court but Sessions Court and this court in different rounds of litigation by filing applications after applications, revisions after revisions and the petitions invoking inherent powers of this Court. 15. In the considered opinion of this court, the trial court has been quite liberal with the petitioner/accused by granting his applications for leading evidence and so was the revisional court, however, the petitioner/accused had misused the proceedings at every level of the litigation and subjected the respondent/complainant to undue harassment. It was a simple case of dishonor of a cheque amounting to Rs.25,00,000/- for insufficient funds in the account of the petitioner/accused payable to the respondent/complainant. This court records that such an approach by the litigant is reprehensible as this seems to be an attempt to subvert the legal process. 16. On a question of maintainability which has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant, the plea of the respondent/complainant also seems to be justifiable in view of law laid down by the various constitutional courts including the Apex Court. 17. The Supreme Court of India in a case titled ‘Kailash Verma v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation’ reported as 2005 (2) SCC 571 held that ordinarily when a revision has been barred under Section 397(3) of the Code, the complainant or the accused cannot be allowed to take recourse to revision before the High Court under Section 397(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, as it is prohibited under Section 397(3) thereof, and that power under Section 482 CrPC has to be exercised sparingly and should not be utilized, as a substitute for second revision. The Apex Court in a case titled Rajathi v. C.Ganesan reported as 1999 AIR (SC) 2374 has also held that once the revision has been dismissed by the Sessions Court, inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 cannot be utilized by filing second revision petition. The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in a case titled ‘Manjla @ Mahendra & Anr. The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in a case titled ‘Manjla @ Mahendra & Anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh’ reported as 2006 Legal Eagle (MP) 870 observing that there is nothing in the petition to invoke the inherent powers which are extra-ordinary powers in nature, either to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the powers of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice held: “This petition under Section 482 CrPC being the second revision by the same party is also not maintainable as there is no provision under CrPC for filing the second revision.” Hon’ble Delhi High Court in a case tilted ‘Narender V. State’ reported as 2005 Legal Eagle (Del) 537, in a case of similar nature held that this is a second revision petition under the garb of Section 482 which is barred by the provision of Section 397(3) Cr.PC. 18. Having regard to the factual as well as legal aspects of the case, as adumbrated above, petition of the petitioner/accused before this court invoking inherent jurisdiction is meritless and is also not maintainable in view of legal position being a second revision petition under the garb of inherent jurisdiction. 19. Viewed thus, in view of aforesaid discussion and observations made hereinabove, the petition being misconceived and without any merit and substance is liable to be rejected. As a result, the petition along with connected application(s) is dismissed. Trial court shall make endeavour to decide the complaint, expeditiously, preferably within one month from the date of this judgment.