Crl. Misc. No.M-4637 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-4637 of 2011 Date of Decision: 05.04.2011 Yaseen ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for setting aside the order dated 12.05.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nuh and order dated 09.10.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had got financed vehicle No.HR-55B-6465 L.P.T. Model 2002 from respondent No.2 regarding which some dispute took place. Accordingly the petitioner filed a civil suit against the firm of respondent No.2. Thereafter, he filed the present complaint alleging therein that on 07.10.2005, the respondents had threatened and assaulted him and also asked him to take back the suit filed against them. This complaint was filed after ten months of the incident i.e on 12.08.2006. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nuh, Mewat sent the complaint for investigation to the police under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The report under Section 202 Cr.P.C was received. As per the report under Crl. Misc. No.M-4637 of 2011 2 Section 202 Cr.P.C, the petitioner had issued a cheque towards the payment of instalment of the said truck. The cheque was dishonoured. A complaint was filed by the respondents against the petitioner which is pending in the Courts at Delhi. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present complaint as a counter blast. Accordingly, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nuh dismissed the said complaint on 12.05.2010. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition which was also dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh vide order dated 09.10.2010. The petitioner has, therefore, challenged the Order dated 12.05.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nuh and order dated 09.10.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Krishnan and another vs. Krishnaveni and another reported as 1997(4) Supreme Court Cases 241 held that second revision before the High Court after dismissal of first one by the Court of Sessions is barred under Section 397(3). Admittedly, the revision petition has been dismissed. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The second revision is barred under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner cannot file second revision under the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C. No doubt, it is a well settled proposition of law that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be exercised only to stop the perpetuating of injustice or in case of misuse of the process of law. However, no such ground has been raised in the present case which may enable the Court to use its discretionary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C in the facts of the present case wherein the revision petition already stands dismissed. In fact, even on merits, the petitioner does not have any case. As per the report under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the petitioner filed the complaint only as a counter blast to a complaint filed by the respondents Crl. Misc. No.M-4637 of 2011 3 against him. The said complaint against the petitioner is pending in the Courts at Delhi. It is also admitted position that the petitioner filed the present complaint after ten months of the alleged incident, if any. Therefore, the present complaint is nothing but a misuse of process of law and a pressure tactic to force the respondents to compromise the matter with him. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed both on account of it being not maintainable, as well as, on merits. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 05.04.2011 JUDGE gurpreet