K. C Bhargava, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC praying for quashing the order dated 15-4-1991 passed by opposite party no. 1 under section 145 (1) Cr PC.
(2.) THE facts which are relevant for the decision of the controversy in dispute are that on 2-4-1991 Dilip Kumar opposite party no. 2 moved an application before the Station Officer, Police Station Kursi District Barabanki with the allegations that he purchased a house on 20-12-1990 from one Munna Lal and obtained possession of the same. After obtaining permission from the Sub Divisional Magistrate the sale deed was got registered on 20-3-1991. Certain persons including Ram Kumar, Prakash Chandra, Vikram, Ramakant and others want to take forcible possession of the house in dispute on account of which there is an apprenhesion of breach of peace. On the basis of this report learned Sub Divisional Magistrate on 15-4-1991 passed a preliminary order under Section 145 (1) Cr PC on the report of the Police. Along with this order the learned Magistrate also passed an order for attachment of the house in dispute and to give the same in the Supurdgi of some person till orders are obtained from the competent Court. This order was passed inspite of the objection of the applicant which was filed before the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 8-4-1991. Aggrieved against that order, Smt.Kamla Devi the present petitioner has come up in these proceedings and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. 4 Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Smt.Kamla Devi has argued that the petitioner bad purchased the house in dispute prior to the purchase of the house by the opposite party No. 2. According to the learned counsel there is apprehension of breach of peace and the learned Magistrate has not given any categorical finding about his satisfaction on this point. Learned counsel also argued that the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 146 (1) Cr PC is also not in accordance with the provisions of law. He has further argued that prior to the passing of this order under Section 145 (1) Cr PC a Civil Suit between the parties was pending and such learned Magistrate was not competent to initiate proceedings under these provisions and he should have dropped the proceedings under Section 145 Cr PC On the other hand learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has argued that the petition under Section 482 Cr PC is not maintainable. Learned counsel has also argued that previously against the order passed under Section 145 (1) Cr PC the petitioner has approached the learned Sessions Judge by filing revision and hence second revision against that order cannot be filed before the High Court. 6. It is admitted to the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that against the order dated 15-4-1991 the petitioner filed a revision before the Court of Sessions Judge but it was got dismissed by the petitioner, hence the petitioner is entitled to come up in proceedings under Section 482 Cr PC and the present proceedings are not barred. According to the learned counsel the Sessions Judge has not heard and decided the revision which was filed before him and hence the present revision is maintainable. 7. Learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has placed reliance on the case of Mohammad Khan Hanif Khan v. Smt. Shamim Begum, 1977 CLJ 116. A perusual of this case law will go to show that in that case in proceedings under Section 145 CrPC the husband was directed to pay certain maintenance allowance to his wife. An objection was raised that as a revision has already been filed before the Sessions Judge, no revision can be filed before the High Court. In that case also the husband had filed a revision before the Sessions Judge but got it dismissed as not pressed On these facts the Court held that it is not the decision of revision application by the Sessions Judge which bars filing of the second application for revision by the same person in the High Court but the mere making of application in revision before the Sessions Judge makes the revision application of the same person before the High Court not maintainable Therefore this decision covers the question involved in the present ease. This Court does not find any reason to disagree with the view expressed in this case. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that even if the revision which was filed by the petitioner before the Sessions Judge was get dismissed by her, will not entitle the petitioner to file second revision before the Court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has not filed second revision before this Court. She has come under inherent powers of the Court and seeks interference of the Court under the provisions of Section 482 Cr PC. It may be mentioned that when a second revision is barred under the provisions of Section 397 (3) Cr PC then no proceedings under section 482 Cr PC can be taken by a party before the High Court to circumvent the bar enacted by the Legislature. 9. In the case of Rajan Kumar Machananda v. State of Karnataka, 1988 (25) ACC 54 (Supreme Court) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that what is prohibited under section 397 (3) Cr PC is that application for revision of the order of the Magistrate cannot be moved if the Sessions Judge has already been moved once. Merely by saying that the jurisdiction of the High Court for exercise of its inherent power was being invoked the statutory bar could not have been overcome. If that was to be permitted every revision application facing the bar of section 397 (3) of the Code could be labelled as one under section 482. Thus this pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly sets at rest the controversy as to whether powers under section 482 Cr PC can be exercised by this Court or not. 10. Thus, in view of the clear pronouncement of this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court it is clear that the powers under section 482 Cr PC cannot be exercised by the High Court in order to circumvent the bar created under section 397 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, powers under section 482 Cr PC cannot be invoked to revise the orders passed by the Sessions Judge when this is specifically prohibited under section 397 (3) Cr PC In the present case as has already been seen in the earlier part of the judgment the petitioner has approached the Sessions Judge and has filed a revision before that Court. Without waiting for the decision of the Sessions Judge the petitioner came before this Court under the provisions of section 482 Cr PC and during the pendency of these prooceedings here she got the revision pending before the Sessions Judge dismissed as not pressed; Getting of revision dismissed as not pressed will, certainly affect the maintainability of the second revision before the Court. The second revision before the Court will not become maintainable merely because the Sessions Judge has not finally decided that revision. Therefore, in view of this position of law the present proceeding under section 482 Cr PC is not maintainable, and deserves to be dismissed. 11. In view of what has been said above it is not necessary to decide other points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.;