B.R. Arora, J. - (1.) The learned single Judge of this Court has referred the following question of law for adjudication by the Larger Bench:- "Whether the view taken by this Court in Dharampal's case is to be followed or the view taken by this Court in Raju's case be followed."
(2.) The view taken by the single Bench of this Court in Dharmapal's case is that " in view of the statutory bar of filing second revision laid down by the Code of Criminal Procedure under Section 397(3) Cr. P.C., the party cannot be allowed to take recourse of section 482 Cr. P.C. and thereby circumvent the provisions of Section 397(3) Cr. P.C. particularly when none of the conditions required for the exercise of inherent powers is present." While in Raju's case, another single Bench of this Court has taken the view as under:- "It appears that this three Judges Bench decision was not brought to the notice of Their Lordships, who decided Rajan Kumar's case, (1990 Cri LR (SC) 602). Hence in spite of Rajan Kumar's case, I am bound to follow the principle enunciated in Madhu Limaye's case, 1978 Cri LJ 165 (SC), which is a decision of the Larger Bench of the Apex Court and following the same, I hold that even though a second revision by the petitioners was not competent before this Court yet this Court is not precluded from preventing abuse of the process of the Court and is competent to see that the ends of justice are secured."
(3.) In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present case it is necessary to state in brief the events disclosed in the prosecution case which culminated in taking the cognizance against the petitioners. Complainant Smt. Usha Rani w/o Neeraj Kumar, on 11-10-89, filed a complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar against Neeraj Kumar, his father Om Prakash, mother Smt. Laxmi Devi brother Raj Kumar and Raj Kumar's wife Smt. Saroj Gupta, under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations made in the complaint are that her marriage was solemnised with Neeraj Kumar on 5-7-87, and after her marriage she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused-petitioners and a demand of dowry was made on various occasions. It has, also, been alleged in the complaint that on 20-9-87, she was turned out from the house after giving beatings to her and the accused kept her 'Istri Dhan' with them and refused to return the same. The complaint filed by complainant Smt. Usha Rani was sent to Police Station, Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar, under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. for investigation. An F.I.R. was registered against the accused-petitioners and the police, after necessary investigation, presented the Final Report. A protest petition was filed by the complainant and the learned Judicial Magistrate treated this protest petition as a 'complaint' and clubbed both these cases, recorded the statements of the complainant and her witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P.C. and by his order dated 12-2-91, took cognizance against the petitioners. Dissatisfied with the order dated 12-2-91, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar, taking cognizance against the petitioners, the petitioners preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, who, by his judgement dated 8-5-91, dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and held that the congnizance was taken against the petitioners behind their back and, therefore, they may appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate and raise their objections against the order taking cognizance against them. The petitioners, dissatisfied with the Order dated 8-5-91, passed by the learned Sessions Judge dismissing the revision petition filed by them, preferred a miscellaneous petition in the High Court. At the time of arguments, an objection was taken regarding maintainability of the miscellaneous petition and in view of the conflicting views taken by the Single Benches of this Court, the learned single Judge made the present reference for adjudication to the Larger Bench.;