1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. J U D G M E N T S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.707/ 2003 SMT.GAYATRI VS. RAMOTAR S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the Order dated 25.4.03 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, in Criminal Revision No. 85/ 2000(Smt.Gayatri vs Ramotar) by which revision was dismissed. DATE OF JUDGMENT : - MARCH, 2009. PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE K.S. CHAUDHARI . Mr.Prashant Joshi for Mr.Mahendra Goyal,cousel for the petitioner. Mr.JH.P.Singh for respondent. BY THE COURT : This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C against order dated 25th April 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, in criminal Revision No.85/ 2000 ( Smt.Gayatri vs Ramotar Surajmal) by which revision was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C against non- 2 petitioner on 9.5.96. Non-petitioner submitted reply on 11.10.96 and case was fixed for petitioner's evidence. petitioner examined only herself and 17 opportunities were granted to the petitioner but petitioner did not examined any other witnesses,hence, by order dated 9.6.99 evidence of the petitioner was closed against which revision was filed, which was dismissed by the impugned order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and non-petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner being a lady,could not examine other witnesses and trial Court committed error in closing her evidence, and revisional Court committed error in dismissing revision,hence, petition may be accepted and she may be given an opportunity to examine other witnesses, whereas learned counsel for the non- petitioner submitted that this petition is not maintainable and, further submitted that order passed by the trial Court and revisional Court are in accordance with law,hence, petition may be dism issed. 3 First of all it is to be seen whether this petition is maintainable or not? Learned counsel for the non-petitioner placed reliance on 2 0 0 5 ( 2 ) SCC 5 7 1 Kailash Ver m a v s Pu n j ab St at e Civ il Su pplies Cor por at ion an d an ot h er in which it was held that accused cannot be allowed to file second revision in view of the prohibition under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C but High Court can entertain petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C when there is serious mis-carriage of justice and abuse of process of the Court and mandatory provisions of law are not complied with. This citation rather supports to the petitioner which clearly lays down that even after decision of revisional Court, petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the sam e citation. He further placed reliance on 1 9 9 9 Cr .L.R ( SC) 4 5 1 Raj at h i v s C.Gan esan in which it was held that inherent powers cannot be used as substitution of second revision which is clearly barred under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. It was further held that inherent powers conferred on High Court are vast would mean that there are circumscribed and only be invoked on 4 certain set principles. This citation also does not support to the non-petitioner and it clearly lays down that petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is maintainable. The same principle has been laid down in 2 0 0 2 ( 9 ) SCC 6 3 1 Devi Sin gh an d ot h er s v s St at e of M.P., an d 1 9 9 7 ( 4 ) SCC 2 4 1 Kr ish an an d an ot h er v s Kr ish an av en i an d an ot h er . In these cases it was held that inherent powers of the High Court is still available under Section 482 Cr.P.C against dismissal of revision by the Court of Sessions. Thus, it becomes clear that petition filed by the petitioner is certainly maintainable. In all aforesaid cases it has further been held that inherent powers must be exercised sparingly so as to avoid needless multiplicity of procedure, un- necessary delay in trial and protraction of proceedings. In the case in hand, order-sheets reveal that 17 opporunities were given to the petitioner to lead evidence. Out of these 17 opportunities, 7 to 8 adjournments were given on account of absence of Presiding Officer and suspension of work etc. and 8 to 9 adjournments were taken by the petitioner to lead 5 evidence. In such circumstances, learned trial Court has not com mitted error in closing evidence of the petitioner and revisional Court has not comm itted any error in dismissing revision. After closure of petitioner's evidence, non- petitioner and his witnesses evidence has already been recorded and now there is no justification to grant opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence and petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Are to be exercised very sparingly and that too only when there is serious miscarriage of justice and abuse of court. Consequently, petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is dismissed. ( K.S.CHAUDHARI ) J. CKThanvi