Andhra Pradesh High Court
JUSTICE K.B. Siddappa
Jupally Veeraswamy Vs. Jupally Shantamma & Anr. On 8 April 1996
Law Point:
No revision against an interlocutory order, second revision application not maintainable — Exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction of High Court u/Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. — To correct the abuse of process of Court — Not to convert this Court as Second Revisional Court — Quantum to be granted and given to the respondent by lower Courts
JUDGEMENT
1. This petition is filed to quash the order passed by the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in M.C. No. 19/1993, dated 29.7.1994 and also the Order passed by the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Crl. R.P. No. 155/95 confirming the order on the Trial Court.
2. The first respondent herein is the step-mother of the petitioner. She filed M.C. No. 19/1993 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for maintenance under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- p.m. That petition was allowed granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- p.m. from the date of filing of the petition till the month of July, 1994. The learned Magistrate also granted Rs. 400/- p.m. from the month of August, 1994. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein had preferred Criminal Revision Petition No. 155/95 on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the merits of the case dismissed the revision with no costs.
3. Aggrieved by the said order in the revision, this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the order of the lower Court is filed. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents herein submitted that by virtue of Section 399(3) Cr.P.C. no further proceedings by way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court. Therefore, the petitioner herein having failed in the revision before the Sessions Judge cannot file this proceeding under Section 482, Cr.P.C.
4. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgments in Dharampal and Others v. Smt. Ramshri and Others, I (1993) CCR 47 (SC)=AIR 1993 SC 1361, and Deepthi @ Arthi Rai v. Akhil Rai and Others, IV (1995) CCR 49 (SC)=1995 (5) SCC 751.
5. I see considerable force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner herein had failed in the revision filed by him before the Sessions Court. Ordinarily, no further proceedings are maintainable by virtue of the above mentioned judgments.
6. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice a judgment of my learned Brother Justice v. Rajagopala Reddy reported in D. Lakshmana Rao v. E. Kamala Bat, I (1996) CCR 527 (SC)=1996 (1) ALT (Cr.) 29. In this case he considered the scope of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa, IV (1995) CCR 20 (SC)=1995 (4) SCC 41=1995 Cr.LJ 2935. In that case the Supreme Court held :
“While it is true that availing of the remedy of the revision to the Sessions Judge under Section 399 does not bar a person from invoking the power of the High Court under Section 482, it is equally true that the High Court should not act as a Second Revisional Court under the garb of exercising inherent powers. While exercising its inherent powers in such matter it must be conscious of the fact that the learned Sessions Judge has declined to exercise his revisory power in the matter. The High Court should interfere only where it is satisfied that if the complaint is allowed to be proceeded with, it would amount to abuse of process of Court or that the interests of justice otherwise call for quashing of the charges.”
7. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt in respect of the prohibition to file further revision against the revisional orders of the Sessions Judge. However the High Court certainly has power under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to entertain proceedings when it finds that if the complaint is allowed to be with it would amount to abuse of process proceeded of Court or that the interest of justice otherwise call for quashing of the charges.
8. My learned Brother Justice Vada Rajagopala Reddy with whom I entirely agree also held that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. to correct any abuse of the process of Court. It is necessary to see in a given case whether the provisions under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. are invoked to circumvent the provisions of Sec. 397(2) or Sec. 399(3), Cr.P.C. and to convert this Court as a Second Revisional Court.
9. In the case on hand, both the Courts considered the quantum to be granted. They have given certain amounts to the respondent. The present revision is certainly an attempt to convert this Court as a Second Revisional Court. Such attempt cannot be allowed to fructify. There is no abuse of process of Court. Therefore, this Court cannot interfere while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
10. There are no merits in the revision. Hence the petition is dismissed.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment