9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 2023 - HC - Indian LawsInvocation of inherent power of this Court under Section 498 CrPC - HELD THAT - It is pertinent to note that in the garb of Crl.M.C. under Section 482 Cr.P.C impugning the order passed by the learned ASJ in Criminal Revision No. 29/2012 is a second revision petition which is barred under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. being filed by the same persons, who had already invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Court. This Court cannot act as the second revisional Court in the garb of exercising inherent power. Finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders so as to call for any interference by this Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petition is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Application of the wrong legal provision for discharge. 2. Allegations under Section 354 IPC. 3. Allegations under Section 509 IPC. 4. Recording and evaluation of evidence. 5. Maintainability of a second revision petition under Section 482 CrPC. Detailed Analysis: 1. Application of the Wrong Legal Provision for Discharge: The petitioner argued that the trial and revisional courts applied the incorrect provisions of the CrPC when discharging the accused. Specifically, the petitioner contended that the courts should have applied Sections 238 and 239 CrPC, which govern trials by magistrates, rather than Section 227 CrPC, which applies to sessions trials. The petitioner claimed this misapplication resulted in a miscarriage of justice. However, the court found that this argument alone was insufficient to interfere with the impugned orders, as the courts' findings were based on the evidence presented. 2. Allegations under Section 354 IPC: The petitioner sought to set aside the discharge order concerning Section 354 IPC, arguing that the complainant's statement under Section 164 CrPC, which alleged that the accused touched her breast while pushing her out of the room, should have been considered. The court noted that the FIR did not initially include allegations constituting an offense under Section 354 IPC. The trial court, after reviewing the recorded conversation and other evidence, found no prima facie case for outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 354 IPC. The revisional court upheld this finding, noting the absence of allegations in the initial complaint and the recorded conversation. 3. Allegations under Section 509 IPC: The trial court discharged the accused for offenses under Section 509 IPC, but the revisional court directed the accused to face trial for this offense. The court reviewed the evidence, including the recorded conversation, and found that while the accused used abusive language, it was not directed at the complainant but rather at the court order. Thus, the court concluded that the ingredients of Section 509 IPC were not satisfied. 4. Recording and Evaluation of Evidence: The court emphasized the importance of the recorded conversation, which the complainant herself provided. This recording was played before the SHO and the court. Both the trial and revisional courts found that the recorded conversation did not support allegations of outraging modesty or using abusive language towards the complainant. The courts noted that the complainant did not protest or mention any inappropriate touching during the recorded conversation, which undermined her later allegations. 5. Maintainability of a Second Revision Petition under Section 482 CrPC: The court addressed the issue of the petitioner filing a second revision petition under Section 482 CrPC, which is barred under Section 397(3) CrPC. The court cited precedents indicating that once a party has availed of the remedy of revision before the Sessions Court, they cannot approach the High Court for a second revision. The court reiterated that its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly and not as a substitute for an appeal or to re-appreciate evidence. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition, finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders that would warrant interference under Section 482 CrPC. The petitioner's application was also dismissed as infructuous.
|
