M.A.A.KHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record of the lower Court.
(2.) DR . Prem Chand Mittal, the petitioner was married with Smt. Saroj Garg respondent No. 1 on December 12,1990 at Alwar according to rites and tenets of Hindu religion. Both were residents of Alwar and comfortably settled in life also; the petitioner as a Medical Officer in the Medical and Health Department and the respondent as Lecturer in College Education Department of the State of Rajasthan. On 5.12.1991 the couple was blessed with a daughter -Akshita. On 26.8.1997 Smt. Saroj Garg filed a complaint against the petitioner and Smt. Sunita @ Baby and her father Dr. H.C. Goyal, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively alleging therein that since after two days of the marriage the petitioner had started harassing and treating her with cruelty on account of demand for dowry that he used to take all emoluments in order to help and support of his brother's family that the petitioner had an affair with Sunita -respondent No. 3, and finally married with her on 10.2.1996 in connivance with respondent No. 4. On the basis of her statement recorded under Section 200 and those of her brother Vinod Kumar Garg and her sister's husband Sudhir Kumar recorded under Section 202, Cr. P.C., the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 498 -A and 494, IPC and summoned the petitioner as accused of offences under Section 498 -A and Section 494, Smt. Sunita of offence under Section 494 and Dr. H.C. Goyal of offence under Section 494 r.w. Section 109, IPC, vide his order dated 30.9.1997. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the order of the learned Magistrate before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Alwar by way of a revision petition under Section 397, Cr. P.C. The Addl. Sessions Judge, however, confirmed the said order in toto against the petitioner as well as against the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Hence this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C.
(3.) AT the very out -set Mr. N.A. Naqvi, the learned Counsel for respondent No. . 2 raised a preliminary objection to the effect that since one validity and legality of the order of the learned Magistrate has already been examined by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in exercise of the concurrent powers under Section 397, Cr. P.C. this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C, which is the revision of the same order of the learned Magistrate once again and thus, in fact, a second revision petition in the garb of an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C, was not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Section 397(3), Cr. P.C.;