CRM No. M-2505 of 2008 1 CRM No. M-2514 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-2505 of 2008 Date of decision:- 11.11.2010 State of Haryana ......Petitioner Vs Chander Shekhar Dharni and another. ......Respondents CRM No. M-2514 of 2008 Date of decision:- 11.11.2010 Chander Shekhar Dharni ......Petitioner Vs The State of Haryana and another. ......Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Present: Mr. Randhir Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioner, in CRM No. M-2505 of 2008. Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate, for the complainant/respondent No. 2. Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner, in CRM No. M-2514 of 2008. Mr. Randhir Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate, for the complainant/respondent No. 2. * * * * CRM No. M-2505 of 2008 2 CRM No. M-2514 of 2008 RANJAN GOGOI, J (ORAL) Both the criminal miscellaneous petitions being directed against the same order dated 24.12.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panipat are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Both the petitions arise out of the initial order dated 18.09.2006 passed by the learned trial Court by which leave to withdraw the prosecution against the accused Chander Shekhar Dharni under Section 321 Cr.P.C. was refused by the learned trial Court. Aggrieved the State went in revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Panipat. In the said revision proceeding the accused Chander Shekhar Dharni also participated and was heard. The revision petition filed by the State was, thereafter, dismissed. These two petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the State and the accused Chander Shekhar Dharni. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the State would be barred under the provisions of Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. which prohibit a second revision by the same party. Merely because of the use of nomenclature and by labelling the petition to be under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the said statutory bar cannot be overcome. While the learned State Counsel in CRM No. M-2505 of 2008 has accepted the aforesaid position, learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner in CRM No. 2514 of 2008 has forcefully contended the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Panipat to be wholly illegal. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that the well settled parameters of law governing the exercise of power CRM No. M-2505 of 2008 3 CRM No. M-2514 of 2008 conferred by Section 321 Cr.P.C had been thoroughly misunderstood by the learned Courts below. Even assuming the learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner to be correct in his arguments, the same would satisfy only one of the two conditions which would vest jurisdiction in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to interfere with the order of the Revisional Court, namely, that the order is patently erroneous. Apart from the aforesaid requirement it is settled law that the order complained of must occasion failure of justice. It is difficult to understand how any failure of justice has resulted from the order refusing leave to withdraw the prosecution against the accused- petitioner. Such order may be prejudicial to the accused-petitioner but the same certainly cannot be said to have occasioned a failure of justice in as much as the accused-petitioner by virtue of the said order is now required to face the trial wherein it is open for him to take up an appropriate defence. For the aforesaid reasons, both the petitions are dismissed with no order as to cost. (RANJAN GOGOI) 11.11.2010 JUDGE Amodh CRM No. M-2505 of 2008 4 CRM No. M-2514 of 2008 CRM No. M-2514 of 2008 Present: Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Randhir Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate, for the complainant/respondent No. 2. * * * * For orders see Criminal Misc. No. M-2505 of 2008 titled as State of Haryana Vs. Chander Shekhar Dharni and another. (RANJAN GOGOI) 11.11.2010 JUDGE Amodh