1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH ; BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.R.No. 3859/2011 Neetendra Rajsingh Chhabra Vs. Smt Amarjeet Kour For the Applicant : Shri V.S.Chhabra and Rajbeer Singh, Advocates. For the Respondents : Shri A.K.Mandlik, Advocate. O R D E R (Oral) (29/11/2011) U.C. Maheshwari,J. The applicant/accused has preferred this petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order dated 19.4.11 passed by the IInd ASJ, Dewas in Cr.R.No.29/11 affirming the order dated 18.3.11 passed by the JMFC, Dewas in private complaint Case No.476/08, filed by the respondent, framing the charge against the applicant for the offence of section 498-A of the IPC. It is noted that the aforesaid charge has been framed by the trial court after recording the before charge evidence under section 244 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition in short are that the respondent herein got married with the applicant as per the rites and rituals of the Hindu religion (Sikh religion) on dated 13.6.04 and subsequent to that on account of differences and other reasons stated in the complaint filed in the trial court, under compulsion, the respondent came back to her parental home and is residing with them since 5.10.04. The respondent herein gave a report in writing to the police on dated 2.3.05 contending that she was given cruel treatment with beating by the applicant and his family members. On the basis of such report a Crime No.215/05 was registered against the applicant and his family members at Police Station Kotwali, 2 Dewas for the offence under section 498 and 323 of the IPC. In the course of investigation of such crime, the applicant herein filed M.Cr.C.No.1937/05 under section 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashment of the FIR and investigation on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of such police station and also that the ingredients of the alleged offence are not made out from the FIR itself. Such petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 1.9.05 with a direction to the police to examine the matter on aforesaid both the questions and take appropriate steps. Pursuant to that order, the police has filed a final report under section 169 of the Cr.P.C and closed the matter. Subsequent to this, the respondent herein filed a private complaint on 17.6.06 in the Court of CJM Dewas against the applicant and his other family members with a prayer to take cognizance against all of them for the offence under section 498-A and 323 of the IPC. After adopting the procedure provided under section 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C, vide order dated 28.2.2008 the CJM had taken the cognizance in the matter only against the applicant for the offence of section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short `the Act') while the cognizance of section 498-A of the I.P.C was not taken by such Court on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction of such Court because the alleged incident was found to be happened within the territorial jurisdiction of some other Court. 3. The aforesaid order taking the cognizance of section 4 of the Act was challenged by the applicant herein under section 482 of the Cr.P.C in M.Cr.C No.4615/08. On consideration such petition was decided vide order dated 6.2.09 whereby the applicant was extended the liberty to file the fresh application stating all the grounds and objections before the trial court and such court was directed to decide such application afresh. Pursuant to that an application dated 25.2.09 was filed on behalf of the applicant in the trial court. On consideration such application was dismissed by such Court on dated 17.3.09. It is noted that such 3 interim order dated 17.3.09 has not been separately challenged by the applicant herein except in the present petition or in the impugned revision. Subsequent to it on dated 18.3.11 considering the recorded before charge evidence (which was recorded during pendency of the aforesaid litigation at different forum) holding that the ingredients of the offence of section 4 of the Act are not made out for framing such charge, but the ingredients of the offence of section 498-A are made out from such evidence and pursuant to that the charge of section 498-A of the IPC was framed against the applicant. He abjured the guilt and being dissatisfied with such order filed the revision before the subordinate revisional court. On consideration, the same was dismissed by the revisional court. Thereafter, the applicant has come forward to this court with this revision. 4. The applicant's counsel after taking me through all the papers placed on the record including all the earlier orders, the recorded before charge evidence so also the impugned orders framing the charge and affirming such charge by the revisional court, argued that firstly after submitting the final report by the police under section 169 of the Cr.P.C, the trial court did not have any authority to take the cognizance in the matter, secondly, he said that after taking the cognizance of section 4 of the Act at the initial stage of the private complaint on the basis of the statements of complainant's witnesses recorded under section 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C, in view of the aforesaid earlier order of this court, the trial Court had only authority to examine the matter whether the ingredients of section 4 of the Act are made out or not for framing the charge and it could not evaluate such evidence to frame the charge of section 498-A of the IPC. It was also argued that in view of the settled proposition of the law that after passing the order by the trial court in a criminal matter, taking the cognizance of some specific offence in such matter, such court did not have any authority either to revise or review or recall such order 4 and, in such premises also, the charge of section 498-A of the IPC could not be framed against the applicant. With these submissions, the applicant's counsel submits that by framing the charge, the trial court has committed grave error and injustice with the applicant and by dismissing his revision, the subordinate revisional court has also committed grave error and, therefore, by invoking the inherent power of this court enumerated under section 482 of the Cr.P.C, the charge of section 498-A framed by the trial court be quashed. 5. On the other hand, Shri Mandlik the appearing counsel of the respondent by justifying the impugned order of the trial court as well as of the revisional court said that the same is based on proper appreciation of the recorded before charge evidence as per provision of of section 244 of the Cr.P.C and also is in consonance with the averments of the complaint as well as the other available papers placed on the record along with the aforesaid evidence recorded. In continuation, he said that as per spirit of section 245 of the Cr.P.C, the charge has been rightly framed and it could not be interfered at this stage under the inherent powers of this court. He also argued that whenever some other remedy is available to the parties to challenge the order of the trial court and the same has been exhausted by the party, then contrary to the settled position under the garb of some other provision no one can be permitted to prosecute any proceedings before the court of law. According to him after passing the order for framing the charge by the trial court, such order was challenged by the applicant before the revisional court in which by dismissing the revision, the same has been affirmed and thereafter under the garb of section 482 of the Cr.P.C, contrary to section 397/401 Cr.P.C, the applicant has filed this second revision which is neither permissible nor could be entertained in the shape of Misc.Criminal Case under section 482 of the Cr.P.C and prayed for dismissal of this petition. 5 6. Having heard the counsel at length, keeping in view their arguments, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on the record including the above mentioned earlier orders. It is undisputed position in the law that section 498-A of the IPC is triable as per the procedure prescribed for the warrant cases because under such section the maximum punishment three years sentence with or without fine has been provided. As per the definition of warrant cases under section 2 (x) of the Cr.P.C, the cases in which maximum punishment more than two years has been provided, the same is to be treated to be the warrant cases. I would like to mention here also that the warrant cases could filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate in two modes; one is after holding the investigation by the police and another one is by way of private complaint by the victim. It is undisputed position that the private complaint is filed under section 200 of the Cr.P.C and by adopting the procedure provided under section 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C, the appropriate order is passed by the Court of judicial magistrate for taking the cognizance or dismissing the complaint and if the cognizance is taken then the process is issued to the accused concerned. Undisputedly such procedure has been adopted by the trial court in the present matter as submitted by the counsel of the parties. 7. It is noted that at the time of taking the cognizance considering the over-all circumstances, the cognizance of section 4 of the Act was taken only against the applicant in the impugned private complaint and subsequently such order was challenged before this court and this court by extending the liberty to the applicant to file the application had given the direction to the trial court to consider such application. The same was considered and dismissed by such Court as stated above and meanwhile the before charge evidence under section 244 of the Cr.P.C was also recorded by the trial court. The impugned case being private complaint 6 of warrant case, the trial court was bound to adopt the procedure provided between section 244(2) of the Cr.P.C and onwards of such chapter. Accordingly by adopting the same, the before charge evidence was recorded and after recording such evidence, the stage of framing the charge or to discharge the applicant came before such court and on evaluation of such evidence, on establishing the ingredients of the offence of section 498-A of the IPC, such charge was framed against the applicant by order dated 18.3.2011. 8. Subsequently such order was challenged before the revisional Court and the revisional court taking into consideration the aforesaid recorded before charge evidence and other circumstances has categorically held that the ingredients of the alleged offence for framing the charge of section 498-A are made out and pursuant to that the revision has been dismissed. 9. It is settled principle that under the revisional jurisdiction, this Court can correct the error, if any, committed by the courts below but at this stage under section 482 of the Cr.P.C, this Court did not have the jurisdiction to re-appreciate the aforesaid recorded before charge evidence because such act has already been carried out by the subordinate revisional court and on perusing such order of the revisional court along with the order of the trial court, I have not found any perversity, illegality, infirmity or anything against the propriety of the law in such orders which require any interference at this stage under the inherent powers of this Court. 10. As per sub section 3 of section 399 of the Cr.P.C, the person who has already exhausted the remedy of the revision did not have any right to file the second revision against the order passed by the revisional court dismissing his revision. When such prohibition is made under the law then under the garb of section 482 of the Cr.P.C the person like applicant could not be permitted to file 7 the second revision and, in such premises, I am of the considered view that it being second revision, could not be entertained by this court to consider the prayer made on behalf of the applicant. This court is not sitting as the appellate authority of the revisional court and, therefore, in such premises also, the impugned order of the revisional court as well as the trial court could not be interfered at this stage. 11. Besides the aforesaid, for the sake of arguments if the matter is taken-up to consider the merits then at the first stage after registration of the FIR under section 154 of the Cr.P.C, the matter was investigated and ultimately in compliance of the directions of this Court on conclusion of such investigation, the final report under section 169 of the Cr.P.C was filed. But filing of such report does not curtail the right of the complainant or the victim to file the private complaint before the competent court under section 200 of the Cr.P.C with respect of the alleged offence. So, in such premises, it appears that the complaint was filed by the respondent under her available right and after recording the evidence under section 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C initially the cognizance of section 4 of the Act was taken, which is also a warrant case and, process was issued against the applicant then first stage of the case was over. Subsequent to his appearance, by adopting the procedure of warrant case, the before charge evidence was recorded by the trial court under section 244 of the Cr.P.C. In such process also, as per the available papers, at subsequent stage the trial court has not committed any error in framing the alleged charge. If the trial court has come to this conclusion that the prima facie ingredients of the offence of section 498-A of the IPC instead section 4 of the Act, are made out against the applicants then there was no any hurdle in the way of such Court to frame the charge of section 498-A of the IPC even after discharging the applicants from the charge of section 4 of the Act. So, in such premises also, in view of section 244 and 245 of the Cr.P.C, the trial court has not 8 committed any error. In such premises, it is held that the aforesaid every order was passed by the trial court under the different provisions and at different stages of the case. So, it could not be said that any order was revised, reviews or recalled by the trial court and it is held that the trial court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order framing the alleged charge against the applicant and the revisional court has also not committed any error on its turn in maintaining such order framing the charge of section 498-A of the IPC against the applicant in the matter. 12. In the aforesaid circumstances, I have not found any perversity, infirmity or any other thing in the order impugned requiring interference under the inherent powers of this court enumerated under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Consequently, this petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL