*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU +Crl.P. No.1197 OF 2007 % 19-02-2010 #S. Santhosh Reddy and 2 others ….petitioners Vs. $ State rep. By the Public Prosecutor and another. …. Respondents !Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri V. Pattabhi Counsel for the 1st Respondent: Public Prosecutor Counsel for the 2nd respondent: Sri S. Niranjan Reddy <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 673 2. (1975) 3 Supreme Court Cases 706 3. (1990) 2 Supreme Court Cases 437 4.(1979) 2 Supreme Court Cases 305 5..(1981) 1 Supreme Court Cases 500 6.(2001) 1 Supreme Court Cases 169 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.1197 OF 2007 Date: 19.02.2010 Between: S. Santhosh Reddy and 2 others …..Petitioners And: The State of AP rep., by PP and another …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.1197 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed by the accused Nos. 1 to 3 (A-1 to A-3) under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.2598 of 2005 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar relating to offences punishable under Sections 447 and 504 I.P.C. On report given by the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant, the Narsingi Police registered case in Crime No.121 of 2005, investigated into the same and filed charge sheet in the lower court. Subject matter of dispute between the parties is Ac.23.14 guntas of land in S.Nos.232, 233 and 234 of Manchirevula village. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent and another have been in possession and cultivation of the said land as their ancestral property as per purchase document and revenue records and that on 11.06.2005 at about 12.00 noon A-1 to A-3 came in three cars, criminally trespassed into those lands, erected boards and abused the 2nd respondent and another in filthy language and warned them to leave the lands and that A-1 to A-3 intended to grab the land. At the out set, it may be noted that the petitioners previously filed Criminal Petition No.3931 of 2006 in this Court for quashing the same proceedings which are being challenged in this petition also and that this Court dismissed the same by order dated 25.01.2007. Again the petitioners filed this petition on 12.02.2007 for the same relief as before. The petitioner’s counsel contended that previous Criminal Petition No.3931 of 2006 was dismissed on the ground that injunction order in favour of the petitioners was in force for a limited period only and that there was no injunction subsisting by the date of First Information Report. Now the petitioners’ counsel intends to take this Court through criminal case records and tried to contend that the record does not prima facie prove any offences for which the petitioners are being prosecuted. In previous order dated 27.01.2007 in Criminal Petition No.3931 of 2006, this Court (Dr.G. Yethirajulu,J) dismissed the same with the following observations:- “From the allegations of the complaint, there is a prima facie material that the petitioners trespassed into the land and abused the second respondent and others. The complaint said to be filed by the petitioners is subsequent to the complaint filed by the complainant, therefore, it is a fit case to prosecute the accused and the present petition is liable to be dismissed.” It is not correct to contend that previously this Court did not go into criminal case record and disposed of previous petition on technical ground of there being no injunction order by the date of report of the 2nd respondent. This Court considered allegations in the complaint and came to the conclusion that there is prima facie material that the petitioners trespassed into the land and abused the 2nd respondent and others. In that view of the matter, this petition for second consideration of the criminal case record is nothing but abuse of process of law. I n State v. K.V.Rajendran,[1] the Supreme Court while considering scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C and relevant case law on the subject, observed:- “Section 482 enables the High Court to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The inherent powers, however, are as much controlled by principle and precedent as are its express powers by statutes. If a matter is covered by an express letter of law, the court cannot give a go-by to the statutory provisions and instead evolve a new provision in the garb of inherent jurisdiction.” The Supreme Court observed that reopening of order passed in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C finally decided, on grounds other than ground of clerical or arithmetical mistake contemplated in Section 362 Cr.P.C., is impermissible and that the Court cannot give a go-bye to statutory provisions and evolve a new provision in the grab of inherent jurisdiction and that Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot be resorted to for reopening or altering an order disposing of a petition deciding on merits. It was finally observed that the party can file a fresh petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for taking notice of “subsequent developments” by the High Court and to pass order accordingly. In the case on hand, the petitioners did not plead much less prone existence of any subsequent developments in the case except paucity of time. Similarly in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs vs. Mohan Singh,[2] the Supreme Court held that the High Court’s power under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (equivalent to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) to entertain an application again is there in changed set of circumstances. In Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee,[3] the Supreme Court held that inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C does not extend to what is expressly barred under the Code and that it cannot be exercised by the High Court to review its own earlier decision in view of Section 362 Cr.P.C. In my opinion, entertaining of the present petition though filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C would only amount to entertaining a petition for review of the previous order under Section 362 Cr.P.C., which is prohibited by law. In State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Agarwala,[4] it was held by the Supreme Court that the High Court with its original as well as appellate criminal jurisdiction also comes within the purview of general prohibition in Section 369 of the Code of 1898 (similar to Section 362 of Code of 1973) and therefore, the High Court has no power to alter or review its own judgment. Similar rulings are given by the Supreme Court in subsequent decisions in Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal,[5] and HariSingh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa,[6]. Having regard to the above case law and having regard to above quoted finding of this Court in the previous criminal petition, this Court has absolutely no hesitation to hold that the present petition is nothing but abuse of provision contained in Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the offence is trivial one and is covered by Section 95 I.P.C. It is open for the petitioners to put forth this contention also before the trial court at the time of trial. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ____________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:19.02.2010. Note:- L.R. copy to be marked // By Order// Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.1197 OF 2007 Date: 19.02.2010 Gk. [1] (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 673 [2] (1975) 3 Supreme Court Cases 706 [3] (1990) 2 Supreme Court Cases 437 [4] (1979) 2 Supreme Court Cases 305 [5] (1981) 1 Supreme Court Cases 500 [6] (2001) 1 Supreme Court Cases 169