- (1.) K. N. Sinha, J. The present application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed against the order dated 28-2-2003 (Annexure-7 to the application) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Ballia, in Revision No. 378 of 2002, Virendra Singh and others v. State of U. P. and others.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this application are that Opposite Party No. 3 filed a complaint in the Court of Respondent No. 2. THE statements of complainant and witnesses were recorded. THE Magistrate took the cognizance and summoned the applicants as accused by order dated 20-8-2001. THE applicants filed objection against the said summoning order, which was rejected by order dated 15- 4-2002. THE applicants then filed a revision against the said order which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 378 of 2002 and the said revision was also dismissed on 28-2-2003. Now the applicants have come up against the said orders. I have heard learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA. Learned AGA raised a preliminary point that once the revision has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge, the application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. cannot be entertained. Learned Counsel for the applicants objected to it and submitted that there are a number of authorities which lay down that even in such circumstances the application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is maintainable. In 1989 JIC 540, H. K. Rawal Chairman, Mussoorie National School, Srinagar Estate Mussoorie District Dehradoon and others v. Nidhi Prakash and another, which is a Full Bench decision of this Court. This matter came up for consideration. The Full Bench of this Court held that: "similarly, the order of the Sessions Judge in revision in cases under Sections 125, 133/138 and 145 Cr. P. C. and against an order of discharge by the Magistrate cannot be interfered with by the High Court either in exercise of its revisional powers at the instance of the same party or suo motu or in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for these are also some of the orders of the Sessions Judge which determine the dispute between the parties. The order of the Sessions Judge in revision against a summoning order or an order framing charge are however different as it does not determine the dispute between the parties if it resulted in the abuse of the process of the Court and/or call for interference to secure the ends of justice it can be interfered with by the High Court in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. as this is not barred under Section 397 (3) and Section 399 (3) Cr. P. C. "
(3.) IN Krishnan and another v. Krishnaveni and another, 1997 JIC 406 (SC) ; 1997 (4) SCC 241, it has been held as follows: " (10) Ordinarily, when revision has been barred by Section 397 (3) of the Code, a person- accused/complainant-cannot be allowed to take recourse to the revision to the High Court under Section 397 (1) or under inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code since it may amount to circumvention of the provisions of Section 397 (3) or Section 397 (2) of the Code. It is seen that the High Court has suo motu power under Section 401 and continuous supervisory jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Code. So, when the High Court on examination of the record finds that there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the Courts or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice or order passed or sentence imposed by the Magistrate requires correction, it is but the duty of the High Court to have it corrected at the inception lest grave miscarriage of justice would ensue. It is, therefore, to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process that the High Court is preserved with inherent power and would be justified, under such circumstances, to exercise the inherent power and in an appropriate case even revisional power under Section 397 (1) read with Section 401 of the Code. As stated earlier, it may be exercised sparingly so as to avoid needless multiplicity of procedure, unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of proceedings. The object of criminal trial is to render public justice, to punish the criminal and to see that the trial is concluded expeditiously before the memory of the witness fades out. The recent trend is to delay the trial and threaten the witness or to win over the witness by promise or inducement. These malpractices need to be curbed and public justice can be ensured only when trial is conducted expeditiously. " This authority has been followed in Prasanta Kumar Dev v. State of West Bengal and another, (2002) 9 SCC 630 and Laxmi Bai Patel v. Shyam Kumar Patel, 2002 (2) JIC 42 (SC) ; 2002 (44) ACC 1102 SC and Rajendra Prasad v. Bashir and another, 2002 Cr. L. J. 90.;