Criminal Misc. No.M-47843 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-47843 of 2007 Date of decision: 14.1.2010 Sanjeev Kumar ......Petitioner Versus R.K.Sharma and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Yogesh Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short) seeking quashing of order dated 20.7.2002 passed the Additional Sessions Judge (A) Fast Track Court, Sangrur and order dated 16.7.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sangrur in complaint No.11 dated 25.1.2005. The petitioner filed a complaint under Sections 406/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Criminal Misc. No.M-47843 of 2007 2 the respondents. The case of the petitioner was that all the accused in connivance with each other had forged and fabricated false documents and misappropriated amount of Rs.4,180/- which had to be paid to the petitioner against Personal Accident Policy issued by Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Further the case of the petitioner was that he had never absented from his duties and had met with an accident and was to get medical reimbursement from the Insurance Company. The petitioner led evidence in support of his case. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence led by the petitioner, held that there was nothing on record to suggest that any document had been forged or fabricated by the respondents or that they had misappropriated the amount in question. There was no document on the file showing that the petitioner had ever demanded back the amount in question from the company which had been transferred in the account of the company. The petitioner preferred a revision petition against the order of dismissal of complaint by the Magistrate and the said revision petition was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that it was established that the amount had been received by the company on account of claim of the petitioner from the Insurance company but the same was still lying with the company and had, thus, not been misappropriated by the respondents. It was at the most a case of Criminal Misc. No.M-47843 of 2007 3 civil liability and hence, no case was made out to proceed against the respondents in the criminal complaint. This Court in para 6 of its judgment in Manoj vs. Prem Lal, 2006(3) RCR(Criminal) 941, held as under:- “Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly and such power was not to be utilised as a substitute for second revision. Ordinarily, when a revision has been barred under Section 397 (3) of the Code, the complainant or the accused cannot be allowed to take recourse to revision before the High Court under Section 397 (1) of the Code, as it is prohibited under Section 397 (3) Cr.P.C. However, the High Court can entertain a petition under Section 482 of the Code, when there is serious miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of the Court or when mandatory provision of law are not complied with and when the High Court feels that the inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised to correct the mistake committed by the revisional Court.” In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to convince me that there has been any serious miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of Court which would call for exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while Criminal Misc. No.M-47843 of 2007 4 dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner, are sound reasons and call for no interference. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 14, 2009 anita