IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 49 of 2010 Reserved on: 14.7.2010 Date of decision: 13.08.2010 Dinesh Chander Sharma ... Petitioner Versus State Bank of India and others …Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Petitioner in person. For the respondents: ………… V.K. Ahuja, J. : This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 24.5.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una, in Revision No. 22/2006, vide which the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (II), Una, dated 18.8.2006 in complaint case No.56-1 of 2004 was upheld. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complaint filed a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. against three respondents. It was alleged by him that accused No. 3 induced the complainant to sign a blank guarantee form in the capacity of Special Power of Attorney of one Gulam Rasool, in a loan case of one Ishwar Chand Sardana at whose instance the complainant had agreed 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 to be a General Power of Attorney and Special Power of Attorney of said Gulam Rasool, but accused No. 3 in his official capacity, dishonestly filled up the guarantee form in the personal capacity of the complainant by mentioning the property of the complainant as having been mortgaged, whereas he has acted as a Special Power of Attorney of said Gulam Rasool and he had signed the guarantee form in the capacity of Special Power of Attorney, who had agreed to mortgage his own property against the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- to be taken by one Ishwar Chander Sardana from accused No. 1. It was alleged that accused No. 1 filed a civil suit before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Anandpur Sahib, in which the defendants had used defamatory remarks against the complainant for hatching a conspiracy and as such, he tried to invoke the powers of Court under Section 190(1)(a) by summoning them on the basis of these allegations made in the civil suit. 3. The complainant led preliminary evidence before the learned trial Court, which considered the evidence and held that no case was made out for proceeding against the accused persons. One of the factors which had weighed with the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class was that though a notice was issued to the complainant by the advocate of defendant No. 1 in the month of January, 2001, but he filed the complaint after a delay of three years on 31.1.2004. Against the said order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, a revision petition was filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his impugned order held that there was no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner. 4. I have heard the petitioner in person and have also gone through the record of the case. 3 5. The powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India are to be used sparingly and these powers cannot be used in a routine manner as if this Court was exercising the powers of revision against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class. The petitioner had the remedy to file a revision before this Court or before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge and once those provisions have already been invoked by the petitioner by filing the revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, this Court cannot consider the petition as a revision. However, the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked in exceptional circumstances to correct an illegality, which could not be corrected by the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 6. These powers were already exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the learned Additional Sessions Judge had considered the preliminary evidence led by the complainant and had concluded that the complainant ought to have contested the suit and sought his deletion from the array of defendants in his personal capacity. The grievance of the petitioner was in regard to the allegations in the civil suit that the defendants had conspired against the interest of the bank. Once these powers have already been exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, these powers cannot be invoked by filing the present petition, which is only an abuse of the process of law. The order can be set aside once it was held that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had committed an illegality and it cannot be corrected except by filing the present petition and no case was made out for exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4 7. To substantiate his allegations, the complainant had relied upon the decisions in Thangavelu Chettair Vs. Ponnammal, AIR 1966 Madras 363, Thangavelu Chettair Vs. Ponnammal, 1966 Cri. L.J. 1149, and Balraj Khanna and others Vs. Moti Ram, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1389, which are not applicable to the facts of this case. 8. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly, hold that there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner, which is dismissed. The registry is directed to inform the petitioner about the fate of the present petition accordingly. ( V.K. Ahuja ), August 13, 2010 Judge (BSS)