M.Murtaza Husain, J. - (1.) While sitting single one of us referred the following two questions of law for determination by a larger Bench:- 1. Whether the remedy under Section 482, Cr. P. C. can be availed of by party in spite of an express bar to a second revision by Section 397 (3), Cr, P. C. ? 2. Whether while hearing a revision t under the new Cr. P. C. against an order passed in a proceeding under Section 145' Cr. P. C. (old) in conformity with the finding of the civil court under Section 146 (IB) old Cr. P. C. the revisional court is empowered to question the correctness, legality or propriety of the finding or the regularity of the proceedings of the civil court ?
(2.) We have heard the learned Advocates of the parties on the aforesaid two points.
(3.) So far as the aforesaid first point is concerned their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1978 SC 47) , which was a case of bar relating to maintainability of a revision against an interlocutory order placed by Section 397 (2) Cr. P. C. that:- "The bar provided in sub-section (2) of Section 397 operates only in exercise of the revisional power of the High Court, meaning thereby that the High Court will have no power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order. Then in accordance with one or the other principles enunciated above, the inherent power will come into play, there being, no other provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. But then if the order assailed is purely of an interlocutory character -which could be corrected in exercise of the revisional power of the High Court under the 1898 Code, the High Court will refuse to exercise its inherent power. But in case the impugned order clearly brings about a situation which is an abuse of the process of the Court or for the purpose of securing the ends of justice interference by the High Court is absolutely necessary, then nothing contained in Section 397 (2) can limit or affect the exercise of the inherent power by the High Court but such cases would be few and far between. The High Court must exercise the inherent power very sparingly. One such case would be the desirability of the quashing of a criminal proceeding initiated illegally, vexatiously or as being without jurisdiction". A Division Bench of this Court has also laid down in Bhola v. State (1979 Cri LJ 718) that:- "This bar should not cause any frustration in the mind of an aggrieved party as the High Court has inherent powers to remedy an abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice as laid down in Section 482 of the Code in a proper case where no alternative remedy is open to the aggrieved party." Following the above noted observations we are of the opinion that a party, which is unsuccessful in a revision before the Sessions Judge, is precluded from filing a second revision in the High Court by Virtue of the provisions of Section 397 (3) Cr. P. C. The High Court can, however, exercise its inherent powers where that exercise is warranted irrespective of the manner in which the matter has been brought to the notice of the High Court. A party which has been unsuccessful in revision filed before the Sessions Judge may seek to bring the matter to the notice of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. and the High Court can in appropriate cases, remedy the wrong done by a subordinate court, if the conditions laid down by Section 482 Cr. P. C. (new) exist.;