- (1.) S. N. Saxena, J. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) whereby applicant Lala Ram has prayed this Court to quash the impugned orders dated 16-4-1994, 2-8- 1994 and 14-12-1994 passed by the courts below. The facts which gave rise to these proceedings are as follows: Applicant Lala Ram had filed a complaint against opposite parties 2 to 7 and one Sudhir Kumar on 19-10- 1993 for the offence under Section 498-A, I. P. C. with the allegation that his daughter Smt. Laxmi Devi was married to Sudhir Kumar on 5-5-1992. As she had not been able to get ful filled the desire of her husband and the opposite parties by getting gifted Hero Honda Motor Cycle by her father Lala Ram, this resulted in her mal treatment, torture and attempt to kill her by sprinkling kerosene oil on her. He had adduced evidence under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. and had also adduced documentary evidence on the basis of which the learned Magistrate had summoned all the accused persons by order dated 6-1- 1994. The accused persons challenged the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate to summon all of them and the learned Magistrate, thereafter, by order dated 16-4-1994 recalled the order dated 6-1-1994 and further directed that the order dated 6-1-1994 shall be operative against accused Sudhir Kumar only. The present opposite parties, thus, were discharged by the learned Magistrate. The applicant preferred a revision application before the learned Sessions Judge against the order dated 16-4-1994, but it was dismissed on 8-7-1994. The applicant then again moved an application before the learned Magistrate for summoning the accused persons (opposite parties 2 to 7) for the offence under Section 498-A, I. P. G. , but the same was dismissed on 2-8-1998. Annexure-4 of this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is a true copy of the said order dated 2-8-1994 of the learned Magistrate. The applicant, thereafter, preferred a revision application before the Sessions Judge, but the same was dismissed by order dated 14-12-1994, a copy of which is Annexure-5 of this application. Finding no other remedy, the applicant instituted this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C.
(2.) THE matter was heard at the stage of admission. THE instant appli cation was moved on 19-1-1995 and the learned counsel for the applicant was unable to explain the inordinate delay in moving the application so far as the orders dated 16-12-1994 and 2-8-1994 were concerned. THE only reason put forward was that he had preferred revision application against the said orders before the learned Sessions Judge due to which the application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. could not be moved by the applicant soon after the aforesaid two orders were passed by the courts below. THE explanation, however, is not satisfactory and on the ground of delay, the application so far as the orders dated 16-4- 1994 and 2-8-1994 were concerned could not be entertained by this Court. It may also be mentioned that by order dated 2-8-1994, the learned Magistrate had refused to review the earlier order whereby he had directed that accused Sudhir Kumar alone would be tried for the offence under Section 498-A, I. P. C. by him, vide Annexure-4 of the application, which is a copy of the said order dated 2-8-1994 of the learned Magistrate. THE order dated 2-8-1994 read as follows : "perused the application. Order has been passed on merits. No ground to review the order. Hence application is rejected. Summon the accused person on the date fixed. " It was also important to mention that the learned Magistrate was not competent to review his order dated 16-4-1994 and the applicant had wrongly moved the review application before him. No illegality, thus, was committed by the learned Magistrate so far as the order dated 2-8-1994 was concerned. The order of the learned Magistrate dated 16-4-1994 whereby the proceedings against opposite parties 2 to 7 had been dropped was challenged by means of Revision Application No. 216 of 1994, Lala Ram v. State of U. P. which was by order dated 8-7-1994 dismissed by Shri S. N. Tiwari, Sessions Judge, Aligarh. The reasoning given by the learned Magistrate is not mate rial so far as the present application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. was concern ed. The applicant did not challenge the order dated 8-7-1994 of the learned Sessions Judge as contained in Annexure-3 of the application by preferring a writ petition against the same. This order, therefore, has become final so far as the parties to this application were concerned and could not now be chal lenged by means of this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C.
(3.) AFTER the dismissal of the review application of the applicant on 2-8-1994, he again preferred a revision application which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 447 of 1994, Lala Ram v. State of U. P. , and was dismissed by Shri R. S. Nigam, learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh on 14-12-1994 vide Annexure- 5 of the application. The applicant in this case had agitated the same matter before learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh, twice before coming to this Court. He, how ever, had not been able to get success in either of the two revision applications. Sub-section (3) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) specifically bars second revision in the same matter before High Court, if the aggrieved party had availed the remedy by way of revision before the Sessions Judge. The question which arises for consideration, therefore, is as to whether the applicant by means of an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. could get same matter reconsidered by this Court when the remedy of revision was specifically barred by sub- section (3) of Section 397 of the Code aforesaid. This question was considered and decided in negative by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision reported in AIR 1993 SC 1361 : 1993 JIC 466 (SC), Dharampal v. Smt. Ramshri. It would be useful to reproducebelow the following observations from para 4 of the aforesaid judgment to the apex court: "the question that falls for our consideration now in whether the High Court could have utilised the powers under Section 482 of the Code and entertained a second revision-application at the instance of the 1st respondent. Admittedly the 1st respondent had pre ferred a Criminal Application being Cr. P. C. No. 180/78 to the Sessions Court against the order passed by the Magistrate on 17th October 1978 withdraing the attachment. The Sessions Judge had dismissed the said application on 14th May, 1979. Section 397 (3) Cr P C (Act II of 1974) bars a second revision application be the' same party. It is now well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot be utilised for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. Hence the High Court had clearly erred in entertaining the second revision at the instance of 1st| respondent On this short ground itself, the impugn ed order of the High Court can be set aside. " 7 The law did not favour its circumvention and this Court, therefore, to my mind could not entertain the instant application under Section 482 Cr PC. for the simple reason that the same controversy had been got revised by the applicant twice by the learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh. Simply by putting a different title instead of a revision-application, the application under section 482 Cr P. C. , in view of the mandatory bar imposed by sub-section (3) f Section 397 Cr P C. , could not be entertained and the application is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable at the stage of admission itself. 8. In view of the above, the application is dismissed summarily as not maintainable. Application dismissed. .;