1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1191/2005 Padam Chand Dundela vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date: 29.03.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI, J. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, for the petitioners. Mr. D.D. Khandelwal, for the respondent no. 2. Mr. G.S. Fauzdar, Public Prosecutor for the State. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner Padam Chand Dundela has prayed to set aside the order dated 16th June, 2005 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge,No.2, Deeg, District Bharatpur in its revisional jurisdiction. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material available on record including the impugned orders, it is noticed that non- petitioner No.2 – complainant Indra Devi filed a complaint against the petitioner Padam Chand Dundela in the offences under Sections 494, 495 and 497 of IPC. It is alleged that the accused petitioner Padam Chand Dundela being legally wedded to Indira Devi again married another lady Mangli Bai during her life. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Kama took the cognizance of the offence under Section 494 of IPC but declined to 2 take cognizance of the offences under Sections 495 and 497 of IPC for the reason that for these two offences, only Mangli Bai had a right to file the complaint because for these offences, the aggrieved party could be only Mangli Bai. The petitioner challenged this order in revision and the revisional court did not find any substance in the arguments of the petitioner and dismissed the criminal revision petition accordingly. Aggrieved with the order of revisional court, the petitioner has invoked the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 3. Legally the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked by High Court in a case where there is a concurrent finding of two courts below on facts and law. The Judicial Magistrate, Kama took the cognizance of the offence under Section 494 of IPC and the same was affirmed by Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Deeg in its revisional jurisdiction and dismissed the revision. 4. It has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments that inherent powers should be exercised by the High Court sparingly in rarest of the rare cases with circumspection. I do not find anything on record which could suggest that the non-petitioner – complainant Indra Devi by any means endeavoured 3 to abuse the process of court. The finding with regard to taking cognizance of two courts below seems to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, which call for no interference. 5. For the reasons stated above, the criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed which stands dismissed accordingly. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. Mak/- 39