HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. : 46 of 2010 Reserved On: 14.7.2010 Decided on: .8.2010 Dinesh Chander Sharma ……… Petitioner. Versus Dharam Pal Sharma and another ………Respondents. 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 Additional Sessions Judge, Una in Criminal Revision No.19 of 2008, decided on 22.12.2009, vide which he upheld the order, dated 31.3.2008, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.II, Una. 2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the present complaint are that the petitioner, hereinafter also referred to as complainant, filed a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) read with Section 473 of the Cr.P.C. In the said complaint, the complaint had alleged that during the course of an inquiry held by the DIG, Dharamshala on 6.9.1999 at Una, in connection with the complaint’s complaint against accused No.1 regarding illegal orders issued to accused No.2 _____________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - to arrest the complainant on 25.6.2009, the complainant and his concerned witnesses made their statements in support of the said complaint. It was further alleged that the accused subsequently in their concerned defence statements, falsely stated that the complainant had caused obstruction to accused No.1 and the accused falsely deposed that the complainant was actually causing obstruction to accused No.1 in discharge of his official duty. It was further alleged that the accused falsely deposed with an intention to cause the said Inquiry Officer to believe that the complainant was actually causing obstruction to accused Noi.1 and that they committed an offence punishable under Section 193(part II) of the IPC for fabricating false evidence and they also caused aspersions on the character of the complainant and the offence was also punishable under Section 500 of the IPC. 3. It is clear from the allegations made by the complainant himself that the complaint was dismissed by the court of the learned ACJM, Una on 24.12.2002. The learned Sessions Judge upheld the said order passed by the learned ACJM, Una. The petitioner alleged that he filed another complaint No.124-II of 2005 on the same facts alongwith a copy of the statement of respondent No.1 before the said DIG as additional evidence. It was further alleged that the learned Judicial Magistrate, without appreciating the facts and the provisions of law, dismissed the complaint vide his order dated 31.3.2008. A revision petition was preferred against the said order and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una, vide his order, dated 22.12.2009, upheld the order of the learned JMIC (III), Una. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed on - 3 - 22.12.2009, the petitioner has filed the present petition under the provisions mentioned above. 4. It is clear from a perusal of the petition filed by the petitioner that his complaint was dismissed by the learned ACJM, Una on 24.12.2002 and the said order was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, the order of dismissal of the original complaint filed by the complainant had become final after passing of the order by the learned Sessions Judge on 2.8.2003. The petitioner alleged that he filed the complaint again on the same facts and the only addition made was that he was in possession of the copy of the statement made by respondent No.1 before the DIG in inquiry proceedings. This part of the evidence was sought to be produced as an additional evidence by filing the fresh complaint on same facts, which complaint, on same facts, had been dismissed and the order had been upheld, as mentioned above. The learned JMIC (III), Una had considered the prayer made and the fresh complaint filed by the complainant and I need not comment upon the said order suffice to say that the said order had been upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una against which the present petition has been filed. 5. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge shows that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had considered the facts and had concluded that the petition could have been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders passed by the two courts. However, the same was not done by the petitioner. No such ground had been taken that the copy of the statement made by respondent No.1 was not placed on record and now the same has been placed on record and it had been prayed to be considered - 4 - while filing the second complaint. The learned trial Court had dismissed the complaint on merits and the said order of dismissal had been upheld by the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Una. It had been clearly held that the statements made were not in any judicial proceedings but in departmental proceedings and no complaint had been filed by the court that the witness had deposed falsely. It was also clearly held that the provisions of Section 500 of the IPC were not attracted to the present facts. 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, suffice to say that no case was made out for considering the second complaint filed by the complainant. Moreover, the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not required to be used in a routine, but these are to be used sparingly. 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