IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO.No. : 31 of 2010. Reserved on : 14.07.2010. Date of decision: 5.08.2010. Dinesh Chander Sharma … Petitioner Versus S.S. Chambyal. … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : In person For the respondent : None V.K. Ahuja, J. This Order shall dispose of the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C read with Article 227 of Constitution of India against order dated 20.10.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Una in criminal revision No.1 of 2009. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner hereinafter also referred to as complainant filed a complaint under Section 190 (1) (a) read with Section 473 Cr.P.C as against one Sh. S.S Chambyal. The complainant recorded his preliminary evidence and after perusal of the preliminary evidence adduced by the complainant, the learned Additional C.J. M Una, passed an order summoning the said respondent S.S Chambyal 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 under Section 500/504 I.P.C. It may be mentioned herewith that the complainant had made allegations that he had appeared in the court in some proceedings and the respondent S.S Chambyal, who was posted as S.D.M. Una directed his staff to turn out the complainant. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed the complaint against the then S.D.M presently retired and after considering the preliminary evidence, the learned trial Court summoned the respondent, S.S Chambyal. During the proceedings in the case, an application under Section 319 read with Section 223-A Cr.P.C was filed by the complainant for proceeding against three persons named by him Roshan Lal, Dharam Chand and Kushal Kumar. In the said application, it was alleged that there is preliminary evidence on record that these three persons who were the Reader, Peon and Naib Court to the Court of S.D.M on the instigation of the respondent/ accused in the form of his illegal orders to take the complainant out of his office/ chamber tried to catch hold of the applicant’s arm with the motive of ousting him from the respondent’s office in pursuance of such illegal orders. Accordingly, he filed the application for impleading them as an accused alongwith the then SDM. 3. The said application was rejected by the learned Additional C.J.M vide his order dated 22.9.2008. The petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 399 Cr.P.C against the said order before learned Session Judge, Una, who after hearing the parties passed the impugned order dismissing in the revision petition and by holding that the learned J.M.I.C had rightly rejected the application under Section 319,223-A of Cr. P.C and accordingly the revision petition was dismissed. 3 4. Petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C read with Article 227 of Constitution of India against the said Order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Una. 5. No notice was issued to the respondent . I have heard the petitioner in person and have gone through the record of the case. 6. The submissions made by the petitioner in person were that the impugned order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Una is not sustainable since offence under Section 500/ 504 I.P.C was made out against these persons also and they should have been proceeded in accordance with law since they were the Reader, Peon and Naib Court posted in the court of respondent S.S Cambyal, who had already been summoned under Section 500/504 I.P.C. 7. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C read with article 227 of the Constitution of India can be exercised by this Court under inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the Process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. These powers are required to be used sparingly once the power of revision have already been invoked by learned Sessions Judge Una, under Section 397 Cr.P.C read with Section 399 Cr.P.C. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Una shows that he has made a reference to all the facts of the case. It is also clear that the complainant was alleged to have committed breach of public peace in the court of S.D.M., who asked the complainant to step out of the court room and still the complainant persisted with the S.D.M to hear him again and again. The allegations made against the three officials are that they had tried to implement the illegal orders passed by the learned 4 S.D.M. The complainant had examined earlier these persons as the witnesses in the complaint under consideration and once they were not prepared to support the complainant, they were sought to be impleaded as accused persons. These observations were made by the learned Sessions Judge after considering the facts of the case. There were no specific allegations as against the respondents for any such act for which they could be summoned except that they had asked the complainant to step out of the court room/ chamber and a specific finding has been given by the learned Sessions Judge that no case under Section 500/ 504 I.P.C was made out and he had rightly come to the conclusion that the learned J.M.I.C had rightly rejected the application for impleading these officials as accused persons. 8. A person cannot be permitted to misuse the process of law and to face the charge under Section 500/504 I.P.C once he was performing his duties and had not committed any offence under Section 500/504 I.P.C for which there were no specific allegations once the impugned order had been assailed before the learned Sessions Judge who had exercised his powers and rejected the revision . The said powers can not be invoked again before this court under the above provisions except in case there was an illegality for which these powers were required to be exercised by this Court. 9. Upon consideration of the order passed by both the courts below and the material on record, I am of the opinion that no case is made 5 out for exercising the powers under these provisions and the impugned order passed by learned Sessions Judge calls for no interference by this Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 5th August,2010 V.K. Ahuja, Judge (veena)