- (1.) O. P. Garg, J. Heard Sri S. P. S. Raghav, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A.
(2.) THE applicants have been summoned on the complaint of opposite party No. 2 in Crime case No. 29 of 1995 under Section 420/384/506/465/467/467/468/471/166/167/120-B and 218 I. P. C. Police Station Hathras Gate, district Aligarh, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh. THE applicants filed an objection/representation against the summoning order. This objection too has been dismissed. THE applicants thereafter filed a revision application before the learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh. THE revision was ultimately decided by IIIrd Sessions Judge, Aligarh by order, dated 7-4-1997. THE revision application was dismissed. In this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. It is prayed that the complaint be quashed as it does not disclose any offence against the applicants. It was urged that the dispute raised between the parties is of civil nature. After having perused the summoning order and the order passed on the application for recalling the summoning order, as well as order passed by revisional court, I find that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the applicants for the offences for which they have been summoned.
(3.) THE learned A. G. A pointed out that since the applicants have availed of the opportunity of filing revision application and have failed, the present application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is not, at all, maintainable. Learned Counsel for the applicant pointed out that there is no absolute bar in tiling application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. in spite of the fact that a revision application filed by the applicants has been dismissed. In support of this contention, he placed reliance in a Full Bench decision of this Court in H. K. Rawal v. Nidhi Prakash 1989 U. P. R 255 : 1989 JIC 540 (All) and Judgment Today Krishnan v. Krishna Vani 1997 (1) S. C. 657:1997 JIC 406 (SC ). I have perused both the aforesaid rulings and find that ordinarily when a revision is barred by Section 397 (3) of the Code, a person-accused cannot be allowed to take recourse to the revision to High Court under Section 397 (1) or under inherent powers of this court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. since it may amount to circumvention of the provisions of Section 397 (3) or 397 (2) of the Code. In very exceptional and sparing circumstances, the inherent powers can be exercised to prevent the failure or miscarriage of justice.;