HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. : 47 of 2010 Reserved On: 14.7.2010 Decided on: 5.8.2010 Dinesh Chander Sharma ……… Petitioner. Versus Bhoop Ram Thakur ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Petitioner in person. For the respondents: None. V.K. Ahuja, J.: This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Una, dated 1.8.2009, affirming the order, dated 8.9.2008, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.I, Una. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the petitioner, hereinafter also referred to as complainant, under Section 190(1)(a) read with Section 473 of the Cr.P.C., for taking action against one Bhoop Singh Thakur, who was arrayed as an accused. It was alleged by the complainant that he was engaged as a counsel by the accused for his son, namely, Gopal in the Juvenile Court, Una and the case was fixed for prosecution evidence. The accused visited the complainant on 5.4.1999 with regard to the said case and he requested the accused to make the repayment of the loan taken by the accused from him for which _____________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - time was prayed. Thereafter, it was alleged that the complainant warned the accused to arrange for the repayment of the said loan till next day, failing which, he would be got imprisoned in that regard. It was alleged that he gave the said warning to the accused in order to extract his loan amount from the accused. It was learnt that two complaints were filed against the complainant by the accused and the complainant applied for the copies and thus, he came to know that the accused has leveled false allegations in the said complaints against the complainant to harm his reputation. Hence, the accused should be summoned under Section 190 (1) (a) read with Section 473 of the Cr.P.C. 3. Preliminary evidence was recorded by the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court dismissed the complaint vide order dated 8.9.2008. A revision petition under Section 397 and 399 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge, vide his impugned order, had also dismissed the said petition. 4. I have heard the petitioner in person and have gone through the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Una. 5. It is clear that this fact had been considered by the learned Sessions Judge that in the complaint itself it was alleged that rather the petitioner had threatened the respondent to clear the liability within 24 hours, failing which, he will be got imprisoned. If such threats are given by an advocate, it has to be seen whether cognizance should have been taken in the case by summoning the accused person. It is rather the complainant himself who gave a threat to his - 3 - client to get him jailed if his outstanding loan amounts are not cleared. It is, therefore, clear that the learned Sessions had rightly dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Una. No offence in question was made out and this question as well as the question of limitation was duly considered by the learned trial Court. 6. The complainant, in support of his arguments, cited a number of decisions which are State of H.P. versus Tara Dutt and another, 2000 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 125, State of Maharashtra versus Sk.Bannu and Shankar, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 22, Vanka Radhamanohari (SMT) versus Vanka Venkata Reddy and others, 1993 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 571, Jatinder Singh and others versus Ranjit Kaur, 2001 CRI.L.J.1015 and Pramatha Nath Talukar versus Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 876. I have gone through the aforesaid decisions, which do not give support to the case of the petitioner. Moreover, no purpose will be served in giving details of cases once no case was made out from the perusal of the record of the case. The powers of revision had already been invoked by the petitioner by filing the revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge. Only one revision petition lies either before this Court or before the court of Sessions and once the said powers had been exercised by the court of the Sessions Judge, no second revision petition lies. The powers vested under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are to be used sparingly to correct the error apparent or to set aside an illegality, which is apparent from the order passed, which is not so in the present case. - 4 - 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I hold that no case is made out for exercise of the powers, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed accordingly. August 5, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge