O.P. Jain, J. - (1.) This is an application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the summoning order (annexure 3 to the petition) dated 11.9.91. The brief facts leading to the application are that respondent No. 2 Matloob Hussain is the husband of Smt. Nighat and applicant Tameez is the brother of Smt. Nighat. In other words respondents No. 2, Matloob Hussain is the brother-in-law of the applicant. A complaint annexure Rs.1' was filed by Matloob against Tameez Ahmad Alleging that he had divorced his wife Smt. Nighat Kureshi on 21.5.90 Some articles belonging to Sint. Nighat Kureshi which were lying with Matloob Husain were given to accused Tamecz Ahmad on 2.7.90 when he came to Dehradun. It is alleged that the articles were entrusted to Tameez Ahmad on an assurance given by him that he will hand over the articles to Smt. Nighat. After sometime Smt. Nighat instituted proceedings under Section 3 of Muslim Women 'protection of Rights on Divorce' Act. 1986 at Belgam 'Karnataka; against Matloob Hussain and from the contents of that application he came to know that Tameez Ahmad has not delivered the articles to Smt. Nighat and has committed criminal breach of trust in support of those articles. The learned counsel for the accused applicant has argued that the complaint filed by Matloob Hussain is a counter blast to the complaint filed by his wife against him and because she is living with her brother (Tameez Ahmad) he has been falsely implicated in the case.
(2.) It appears from the record that Tameez Ahmad filed a revision against the summoning order which was dismissed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun on 23.7.93 vide anncxure Rs.4' to the petition. Therefore in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharampal v. Ram Shri 1993 (30) ACC 140. this application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is not maintainable because it will tantamount to a revision against revision.
(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant has argued in the alternative that some relief should be given to the applicant because he is residing at Belgam (Karnataka) and the case has been instituted against him at Dehradun. It, is therefore, very expensive, time consuming and difficult for the accused-applicant to appear before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. I agree with the learned counsel for the applicant that it is a hard case. It has been held by this Court in the case of V.N. Jiloka v. State 1989 A.C.R. 655 that the Magistrates should be liberal in granting exemption to the accused persons from personal attendance.;