IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2751 OF 2009 Between: M.A.Aleem .....PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2751 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is filed to quash the order, dated 17.03.2009, in R.P.No.10 of 2009 in M.C.No.6 of 2004 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed by the petitioner herein and respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein, was partly allowed setting aside the order, dated 03.12.2008, in M.C.No.6 of 2004, on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, to the extent of return of four tolas of gold chadawa articles. 2. M.C.No.6 of 2004, under Section 3 of the Muslim Women Protection of Rights on Divorce Act, 1986, was filed by respondent No.2 herein seeking direction to the petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards her fair and better provision and to direct the petitioner herein and respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein to return costly clothes, gold ornaments, jahez gold of 4 tolas, presentations and other articles or its value. The said M.C. was partly allowed directing the petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards fair and better provision of respondent No.2 herein and further, directed the petitioner herein and respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein to return 4 tolas of gold chadawa articles of respondent No.2 herein. Aggrieved by the same, R.P.No.10 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner herein and respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein, which was partly allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner herein is unemployed and he has no other source of income; that he is depending on his parents; that therefore, awarding of Rs.1,00,000/- towards fair and better provision for respondent No.2 herein is liable to be set aside and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice or to give effect to the orders passed under the Code. 6. When the findings are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record, the question of invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not arise. In view of the fact that there is a bar under Section 397 (3) Cr.P.C. for filing a second revision, the petitioner cannot circumvent the express provision and file a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the revision order. Unless it is shown that there is abuse of process of Court, the concurrent findings need not be disturbed. 7. In the case on hand there is no abuse of process of Court or it is not a case where the impugned order has to be interfered with to secure ends of justice. In view of the fact that the case on hand does not fall under any one of the three categories as mentioned in Section 482 Cr.P.C., the question of quashing the impugned order does not arise. Hence, there are no grounds to quash the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J August 20, 2010 MD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2751 OF 2009 August 20, 2010