J.S.Maini, I.A.S. vs Thukar Hari Singh

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4778M of 1987 and 4880M of 1988 as they arise out of the same complaint.

Shri J.S. Mani, I.A.S. has filed criminal Misc. No. 4778M of 1987 praying that the complaint filed by Thakur Hari Singh on September 4, 1980 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, against him (petitioner) and others be quashed. Similarly Shri Bikramjit Singh, I.A.S., has filed Criminal Misc. No. 4880M of 1988, for quashing the same complaint.

Thakur Hari Singh, who was a peon in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, filed a complaint on September 4, 19880, against the petitioner and Shri J.D. Khanna, I.A.S., retired Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, Shri S.K. Sinha, I.A.S., the then S.D.M. Ajnala Dr. Rajinder Arora, Dr. Baldev Kishore, Doctor and Medical Superintendent at Mental Hospital, Amritsar, Shri Bikramjit Singh, I.A.S., the then Additional Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, Giani Bachan Singh, Inspector Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar, Shri Baldev Singh, S.D.O. Panchayati Raj and Shri Devinder Singh S.O. O/o B.D. and P.O., Tarn Taran, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, on the allegation that he was President of Class IV Government Employees Union, Amritsar, and in that capacity he made numerous complaints to the concerned authorities regarding corrupt practices of various officers and officials. In this background, his services were terminated in 1968. He challenged his termination and he was reinstated in the service by civil Court.

It was further the case of the complainant in the complaint that in June, 1976, he submitted a complaint against Shri Baldev Singh, S.D.O., Panchayati Raj Amritsar, alleging misuse of public funds. Shri B.R. Azad, District Officer, Removal of Grievances, Amritsar, was to record evidence on his complaint against Shri Baldev Singh on June 25, 1976. Before the evidence could be recorded, a complaint dated June 11, 1976, was made against him by Shri Devinder Singh, S.O. Office of B.D. and P.O. Ajnala, and Shri S.K. Sinha, I.A.S. S.D.M. Ajnala, issued nonbailable warrants against him on June, 11, 1976, on Shri Devinder Singh''s complaint.

The complainant was taken into custody on June 12, 1976, by Inspector Bachan Singh but the arrest was shown on June 13, 1976, and he was produced in the Court of Shri S.K. Sinha on June 14, 1976. It is further the case of the complainant that he was beaten severely during his custody in police. On June 14, 1976, Shri S.K. Sinha passed an order directing him to furnish bail bounds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ with one surety of the like amount for appearance and also issued notice under Section 116(3), Cr.P.C. calling upon him to furnish the required bail bounds for Rs. 20,000/ and on his failure to furnish the requisite bail bonds he was sent to judicial lock up till June 25, 1976. On June 25, 1976, he was produced before Shri S.K. Sinha, and the case was adjourned to July 9, 1976. On July 9, 1976, the case was adjourned to July 28, 1976, and then to August 6, 1976, and again adjourned. On August 8, 1976, Shri S.K. Sinha passed the following order :

"The case has been put up. According to the message received from the Superintendent Jail, Patti, the respondent Thakur Hari Singh has been admitted to the Mental Hospital, Amritsar. Accordingly, the case be put up on August 20, 1976."

The complainant filed a revision against order passed by Shri Sk. Sinha on June 14, 1976, and learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order on October 26, 1976. On November 1, 1976, Shri S.K. Sinha passed the following order :

"Under the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, dated October 26, 1976, the revision petition preferred by Thakur Hari Singh has been accepted and it has been ordered that he be released. Accordingly, the orders for his release shall issue forthwith."

It is further stated in the complaint that the complainant was lodged in Sub Jail, Patti although he was an under trial at Ajnala. Shri J.S. Maini was working as Superintendent of Sub Jail Patti, in his capacity as S.D.M. Patti. The case of the complainant further is that he was sent to Mental Hospital and was admitted there on July 23, 1976, without there being any legal order for his admission to the Mental Hospital as required under the Lunacy Act. He was detained in the Mental Hospital without any Reception JUDGMENTAccording to the complainant, the officers realised that the complainant has been kept in Mental Hospital without any proper Reception JUDGMENT and Shri Bikramjit Singh passed a Reception JUDGMENT on May 20, 1977 to cover that under the Indian Lunancy Act in his capacity as Additional District Magistrate.

Stating these facts along with others, the complainant alleged in his complaint that offences under Section 93 of the Lunacy Act and under Sections 500, 466, 470, 342 and 120B, I.P.C. have been committed by the accused.

The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar summoned the accused under Section 93 of the Lunancy Act, 342/120B, I.P.C. and under Section 500. I.P.C. vide his order dated April 5, 1983. Feeling aggrieved by the summons issued by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Shri J.S. Maini and Bikramjit Singh have filed these miscellaneous petitions for quashing thee complaint filed by Thakur Hari Singh against them and others.

Shri J.S. Maini, in his petition, has submitted that he took over as Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patti, on July 13/14, 1976, and as Sub Divisional Magistrate he was ex officio Superintendent Sub Jail, Patti. On July 12, 1976, the petitioner i.e. Shri J.S. Maini, went to inspect the Sub Jail in this capacity as ex officio Superintendent of Sub Jail and there he found Thakur Hari Singh showing signs of mental instability. Consequently, he being the Superintendent of Sub Jail and responsible for the health of the prisoners, took action under the provisions of Punjab Jail Manual as provided in paragraphs 103, 895 and 892 of the said Manual so that, if necessary Thakur Hari Singh may be transferred to a Mental Hospital. Since Sub Jail, Patti, had no hospital attached to it nor any separate cell for lunatics, S.M.O. Incharge Sub Jail, Patti, wrote to the petitioner as follows :

"Under trial prisoner Thakur Hari Singh son of Suram Singh is suffering from depression, neurosis and suicidal tendency. He may be referred to the Mental Hospital, Amritsar, for treatment."

The petitioner Shri J.S. Maini thereupon passed the following order :

"He may please be immediately taken to Mental Hospital, Amritsar, for observation."

The petitioner thereafter sent the complainant to the Mental Hospital, vide his letter dated July 22, 1976, and sent a copy of the letter to the District Magistrate, Amritsar, as also to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ajnala. The letter to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ajnala, was sent because Thakur Hari Singh was an undertrial in his court and he was detained in Sub Jail, Patti, as there was no Sub Jail at Ajnala and all the undertrials at Ajnala used to be lodged at Patti. It is further submitted by Shri J.S. Maini in his petition that subsequently, a report was received in the first week of September, 1976, in respect of mental condition of Thakur Hari Singh and he forwarded the same to the S.D.M. Ajnala. A further communication was received from mental Hospital, Amritsar, saying that as proceedings under Section 107/151, Cr.P.C. against Thakur Hari Singh had been terminated, and as to how he (Thakur Hari Singh) should be disposed of. As the petitioner was not concerned, he wrote to the District Magistrate, Amritsar, to take further action in the matter. The Mental Hospital authorities had asked that as proceedings under Section 107/151, Cr.P.C. had been terminated, a fresh Reception JUDGMENT under the Indian Lunacy Act had to be passed and since petitioner Shri J.S. Maini was not competent to pass such an order under law, he informed the District Magistrate about that and also directed Mental Hospital to contact the District Magistrate in this connection.

According to petition of Shri J.S. Maini, another letter was received by him from Medical Superintendent, Mental Hospital, Amritsar, and in reply to that letter he wrote to the Superintendent, Mental Hospital, Amritsar, with a copy to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ajnala, in the following words :

"Thakur Hari Singh who has been an inmate at Patti Sub Jail, being undertrial for offence under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. cannot be treated to be in the custody of Sub Jail, Patti, when he has been released by a superior Court to the Additional District and Sessions Judge. Therefore, he is no more in the custody of this Sub Jail from the very date from which the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge has released him.

However, if your medical opinion justifies that he being a lunatic should be given treatment in your hospital, you may do so exclusively at your own discretion from the point of view of the medical necessity only."

The petitioner prayed that the complaint filed by Thakur Hari Singh is frivolous and on the face of it is not entitled to be proceeded within a Court of law. He has further submitted that no sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. has been taken and the complaint, in the absence of the sanction cannot proceed, and the learned Judicial Magistrate could not issue the process.

In his additional application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. he has submitted that the sentence which could be awarded under Section 342, I.P.C. is one year, under Section 500, I.P.C. is two years and similarly under Section 93 of the Lunacy Act, is two years, and the complaint has been filed beyond the stipulated period, as provided under Section 468, Cr.P.C. No complaint could be filed after three years and the learned Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be quashed on that score also.

Shri Bikramjit Singh has filed criminal Misc. No. 4880M of 1988 on the ground that he took over as Additional Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, in February, 1977. Earlier to that he was serving in another capacity and had nothing to do with the complainant Thakur Hari Singh whatsoever. Thakur Hari Singh was lodged in Sub Jail, Patti, under orders of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ajnala in July, 1976. Shri J.S. Maini, in his capacity as Superintendent, Sub Jail, Patti, had passed certain orders directing Thakur Hari Singh to be taken to Mental Hospital. The petitioner had nothing to do with this.

According to the complainant, the petitioner had passed a Reception JUDGMENT on May 20, 1977, which was without complying with the procedure of law as he had been released on March 30, 1977, about seven weeks prior to the passing of the Reception JUDGMENT dated 20, 1977.

Bikramjit Singh petitioner has submitted that the only allegation against him is that he had passed the Reception JUDGMENT on May 20, 1977, without complying with the procedure of law. He has prayed that the complaint was not competent nor the Magistrate was legally empowered to issue process as there was no sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. which was required, as he has passed the order in his official capacity and he has further submitted that the cognizance taken by the Magistrate is barred by the provisions of Section 468, Cr.P.C.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length.

Mr. H.L. Sibal, Senior Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the allegations against Sarvshri J.S. Maine and Bikramjit Singh are that Shri J.S. Maini, in his capacity as Superintendent of Sub Jail, sent Thakur Hari Singh to Mental Hospital, Amritsar, as on his visit to the Sub Jail, he had noticed certain tendencies in Thakur Hari Singh and he acted on the report of the S.H.O. Incharge, Sub Jail, Patti, who reported as under :

"Under trial prisoner Thakur Hari Singh son of Suram Singh is suffering from depression, neurosis and suicidal tendency. He may be referred to the Mental Hospital, Amritsar for treatment."

On this report, Shri J.S. Maini passed the following order :

"He may please be immediately taken to Mental Hospital, Amritsar, for observation."

Shri Sibal has drawn my attention to paragraphs 103, 895 and 892 of the Punjab Jail Manual, which dean with criminal lunatics and provide how they are to be transferred to Mental Hospital. His contention further is that Shri J.S. Maini had complied with the provisions of Jail Manual and even if there is some deficiency in the compliance, he has aced in his official capacity and before any prosecution can be launched for his action, sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. is required. According to Mr. Sibal, it was entirely an official act of Shri J.S. Maini in his official capacity as Superintendent, SubJail, Patti, by which he directed Thakur Hari Singh to be taken to Mental Hospital, Amritsar. When he is an accused of an offence, he has committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties, sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. is mandatory. Admittedly, Shri J.S. Maini is an I.A.S. officer and he is not removable from office save by or with the sanction of the Government.

Mr. Sibal has further argued that section 468 Cr.P.C. is a bar to take cognizance after the lapse of three years as the offences mentioned do not provide imprisonment exceeding three years.

He has further submitted that a reading of the complaint does not show that an offence has been committed and the complaint is frivolous on the face at it. The filing of the complaint and the summoning order issued by the Magistrate amount to abuse of process of Court and have resulted in grave injustice to the petitioners.

As for as the case of Shri Bikramjit Singh petitioner is concerned, Mr. Sibal has submitted that he has passed only a Reception JUDGMENT in May, 1977, in his official capacity as Additional District Magistrate and, if the procedure and the legal requirements have not been complied with in passing the reception JUDGMENT he cannot be prosecuted without sanction, as required under Section 197, Cr.P.C. The complaint and the summoning order without sanction provided in Section 197 Cr.P.C. are not competent. According to Mr. Sibal section 468, Cr.P.C. also bars the taking of cognizance qua Shri Bikramjit Singh, as the maximum sentence for the offence committed is less than three years.

Smt. Sapra, Advocate, learned Counsel for the respondent, while replying to the arguments of Mr. Sibal, has submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to raise the plea of sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. in this Court. They should go and appear in the Court of trial Magistrate and raise objection there and substantiate the same. They are not entitled to raise this plea directly in the High Court. As for as the objection under Section 468, Cr.P.C. is concerned, she has submitted that the application under Section 473, Cr.P.C. has been filed in the trial Court and the learned Magistrate is competent to extend the period of limitation. She has submitted that the complaint is not frivolous. All the senior officers had acted in conspiracy. They were against Thakur Hari Singh as he was complaining against them and just to teach him a lesson they have acted in conspiracy and the acts of the accusedpetitioners clearly show that they have committed the offences for which they are accused of. She has further submitted that Shri J.S. Maini had filed a revision against the order of summoning passed by the trial Magistrate and as the revision petition was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated June 4, 1986, no petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is competent after dismissal of the revision petition.

I have considered arguments of both the learned Counsel. As far as Mr. Sibal''s objection regarding sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. is concerned, I find force in the same. The relevant part of section 197 Cr.P.C. reads as under :

"(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in thee discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take action cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction....."

I now take up the case of Shri J.S. Maini first. The allegations against Shri J.S. Maini is that he, while posted as ex officio Superintendent, Sub Jail, Path, had ordered the respondent to be taken to Mental Hospital, Amritsar. On his visit to the SubJail, Patti, he found that Thakur Hari Singh was showing signs of mental instability. According to Mr. Maini, S.M.O. Incharge of Sub Jail, Patti wrote to him that undertrial prisoner Thakur Hari Singh was suffering from depression, nerosis and suicidal tendency, and he may be referred to Mental Hospital, Amritsar, for treatment. On the report of the S.M.O., he, as Superintendent of Sub Jail, directed that Thakur Hari Singh be taken to Mental Hospital, Amritsar. This order he passed as Superintendent of Sub Jail, in his official capacity. It cannot be said that Mr. Maini, as Superintendent of Sub Jail, could not take any action, when on visit, he finds that Thakur Hari Singh was showing some signs of instability and when Senior Medical Officer Incharge of the Sub Jail makes a clear report that Thakur Hari Singh has suicidal tendency and he should be referred to Mental Hospital. Had Mr. Maini not taken any action, the prehension of the doctor might have proved to be correct and Mr. Maini would have been in serious trouble for his lack of prompt action when doctor incharge of the Sub Jail reported that the undertrial prisoner was under depression and had suicidal tendency and he should be referred to Mental Hospital. The Superintendent Incharge of the Sub Jail, Patti, had no option but to take immediate action. The argument of Smt. Sapra that Mr. Maini should have referred the matter to Mr. Sinha, S.D.M. Ajnala, in whose Court case of Thakur Hari Singh was pending for necessary action in the matter under the provisions of Cr.P.C., is not sound. If Mr. Maini had made a reference to Mr. Sinha, the consequent action of Mr. Sinha in acting under the provisions of Cr.P.C. would have certainly taken some time. In the circumstances, the action of Mr. Maini in acting under the provisions of Jail Manual, cannot be called motivated.

In view of this, it cannot be said that the action is mala fide or beyond his powers as Superintendent, Sub Jail.

Viewed from any angle, the act basically remains to be an official act performed by Mr. Maini, in his official capacity and the argument that he should have acted under the provisions of Cr.P.C. and not under the provision of Jail Manual is only academic. He, in his wisdom as a young I.A.S. Officer, taking the gravity of the situation into consideration, directed immediate shifting of Thakur Hari Singh to Mental Hospital, Amritsar, for observation. I do not find anything wrong in the said order. Even if certain procedure is not followed, it is a sound order in the given circumstances of the case. In a prosecution for such an action, the protection provided by Section 197, Cr.P.C. will be available to Mr. Maini. It is well settled that objection of absence of sanction can be taken directly in the High Court in a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. I uphold the contention of Mr. Sibal that the cognizance in the complaint of Thakur Hari Singh against Mr. Maini could not be taken in the absence of sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C.

As far as Shri Bikramjit Singh is concerned, the only allegation against him is to this effect that as Additional District Magistrate has passed a Reception JUDGMENT on May 20, 1977. It is not disputed that the Reception JUDGMENT is to be passed by District Magistrate and it was Mr. Bikramjit Singh, who was to pass such an order. The only allegation against him is that he passed the order when Thakur Hari Singh was not in Mental Hospital. At the most it can be said that Shri Bikramjit Singh passed the order without knowing all the facts involved in the case. Section 197, Cr.P.C. protects all such actions. When an officer passes an order in his official capacity whether taking all the facts into consideration or without caring to note all the facts and without following the procedure strictly, it still remains an official act of the officer. The defect in the order will not make the order unofficial. The act of passing the order has been committed by Mr. Bikramjit Singh, while acting as Additional District Magistrate, and the Court was not competent to take cognizance without sanction, he being an officer not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government. The argument of Smt. Sapra that Mr. Bikramjit Singh was acting in conspiracy with the other officer and he passed the Reception JUDGMENT in conspiracy with Mr. Maini is not supported by the complaint. In his complaint, Thakur Hari Singh has referred to Shri Bikramjit Singh''s action in paragraph 15(11). It is in the following terms :

"That the Reception JUDGMENT dated May 20, 1977, purported to have been made under the Indian Lunacy Act by Shri Bikramjit Singh, Additional District Magistrate, having been passed on insufficient material and without compliance with the prescribed procedure was bad in law. In any case, it could not have operated retrospectively so as to legalise the detention in the Mental Hospital of Thakur Hari Singh, who had been released on 30th March, 1977, nearly seven weeks prior to the date of that order."

In the complaint, the allegation against Shri Bikramjit Singh is that he passed the Reception JUDGMENT on insufficient material and without compliance with the prescribed procedure, as laid down in law. There is no allegation that he passed the Reception JUDGMENT in conspiracy with others or with any ulterior motive. In the light of this contention in the complaint, provisions of Section 197, Cr.P.C. will be applicable and cognizance could not be taken without sanction. The objection of Mr. Sibal regarding absence of sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. qua Bikramjit Singh is also upheld.

The next argument of Mr. Sibal is that the provisions of Section 468, Cr.P.C. bar the taking of cognizance for the offences under which the petitioners have been summoned. In reply, Smt. Sapra submitted that an application under Section 473, Cr.P.C. for extension of period of limitation has been made. Mr. Sibal has argued that the cognizance of the Court is barred for the offences of the categories specified in subsection (2) of Section 468, Cr.P.C. after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed therein and any application for extension of time should have been made prior to the taking of the cognizance and the trial Court should have passed an order extending the period of limitation before taking cognizance. Admittedly, no order extending period of limitation under Section 473, Cr.P.C. has been passed prior to the order of summoning of the petitioners. Section 468, Cr.P.C. bars taking of cognizance after the period of limitation. Section 473, Cr.P.C. provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, any Court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice. Section 473, Cr.P.C. does not say as to at what stage the Court is to extend the period of limitation and whether it can be done after taking cognizance also. Smt. Sapra argued that there is no bar in taking cognizance during the pendency of an application under Section 473, Cr.P.C. and the Court may pass order extending the period of limitation even subsequent to taking of the cognizance. She referred to a judgment of the Patna High Court reported as Ram Kripal Prasad and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1985(2) Recent Criminal Reports 69 , wherein it is stated as under :

"Equally somewhat hypertechnical pleas were sought to be raised on behalf of the petitioners. It was contended that cognizance having once been taken by the trial Court it would not be open to the accused to raise the issue of limitation thereafter nor was it permissible for the Court to determine the same. Neither principle nor precedent warrant any such specious assumption. It is well settled and has been reiterated in Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa, AIR 1976 SC 1947, that an accused person has no locus standi in the matter till process has been issued against him. His right to raise the issue of limitation thus can arise only after he puts in appearance subsequent to process issued after taking cognizance. I see no bar to the accused person raising the issue of limitation and indeed as observed earlier the same should be done at the earliest and if raised ought to be adjudicated upon a preliminary issue."

I have gone through the entire judgment. This judgment is not relevant to the issue involved as it does not decide as to whether cognizance taken prior to the extension of limitation by the Court will not be questionable if subsequently the trial Magistrate extends the time under Section 473, Cr.P.C.

Having noted the respective contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, it becomes patent that the Magistrate did not apply his mind at all to the question of limitation. This he had to do at the precognizance stage which he failed.

The bar of limitation under Section 468, Cr.P.C. has been included by the Supreme Court in the case reported as State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh, AIR 1981 SC 1054, within the guarantee or protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution under which no person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. The lack of sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. and the bar of limitation under Section 468, Cr.P.C. are the prerequisites for taking cognizance under the provisions of Cr.P.C. Under Section 197, Cr.P.C. no Court shall take cognizance of any offence mentioned in that section except with previous sanction of the authorities mentioned in that section. Similarly, section 468(1) Cr.P.C. is to the effect that except as otherwise provided elsewhere in the Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in subsection (2) of Section 468, Cr.P.C. after the expiry of the period of limitation. The expression "except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code", in section 468, Cr.P.C. refers to the provisions in Section 470 and 471 Cr.P.C. about exclusion of time in certain cases for calculating the period of limitation, the provisions for continuating offence in Section 472 as well as the provision in Section 473, Cr.P.C. under which there can be extension of the period of limitation in certain cases. If there is no application under Section 473, Cr.P.C. for extending the period of limitation at the time of filing of the complaint, the Court taking cognizance of any offence of the basis of the complaint, cannot subsequently extend the period of limitation. As such, there is no difference between the provision for sanction in Section 197, Cr.P.C. and the bar of limitation in Section 468 Cr.P.C. as prerequisites before cognizance of any offence by any criminal Court. I do not think that an accused can be precluded from moving the High Court for quashing a proceeding on the ground that the proceedings is barred by limitation under the provisions of section 468, Cr.P.C., without raising this plea of limitation at first in the Court of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence. This view is in conformity with the view taken by M.M. Punchhi, J., in Ghansham Dass v. Sham Sunder Lal, AIR 1982 Crl. LJ 1717, and S.P. Das Ghosh, J., in Muhipal Bahadur Singh and others v. The State and another, 1986 Crl. LJ 1851.

In the circumstances of the case, as the limitation has not been extended, it is held that the trial Court was not competent to take cognizance in view of the provisions of Section 468, Cr.P.C.

Smt. Sapra has argued that Shri J.S. Maini had filed a revision in the Court of Sessions against the order of summoning passed by the trial Court, the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision vide order dated June 4, 1986, and as Mr. Maini has exercised the right of revision, subsequent petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is barred under the provisions of Section 397, Cr.P.C. She has referred to a few reported judgments to say that the second revision is barred and on the same facts a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. will also be barred in a case where the petitioner''s revision has already been dismissed.

It is not disputed that Shri J.S. Maini challenged the order of summoning by way of revision in the Court of Sessions and the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dismissed the same. If he challenges the order of summoning alone in a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. it will be debatable whether relief can be given to him under Section 482, Cr.P.C. or not. But the situation in this case is entirely different. Before the Additional Sessions Judge, Shri J.S. Maini challenged the order of summoning passed by the trial Court, but in this Court in a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. he has prayed for the quashing of the complaint mainly on the ground that the cognizance taken by the Magistrate is barred by the provisions of Section 197 and 468, Cr.P.C. The revisional Court could not give him the relief of quashing the complaint. It could only examine the correctness or the legality of the order of summoning. If the order of summoning is justified on the facts and the evidence led before the trial Court, the revisional Court will not interfere. The revisional Court is not competent to grant the relief of quashing the complaint on the ground that it is frivolous or is not maintainable in view of certain legal provisions. The scope of revisional Court acting under Section 397, Cr.P.C. and the scope of the High Court while acting under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is entirely different. There are certain limitations on the revisional Court, but there are no such restrictions on the High Court while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. If the Court feels that the pendency of the complaint amounts to abuse of process of Court and it will be necessary to pass an order qua the same to secure the ends of justice, nothing will stop the High Court from doing the same. The restriction that as no second revision is maintainable, a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. will also not be maintainable has a limited scope. That is only in those cases where revisional Court could legally grant the same relief as is prayed in a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. but where the relief sought in a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. could not be granted by the revisional Court under Section 397. Cr.P.C. no restriction or bar can be placed on such a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C.

I am of the view that the fact that Shri J.S. Maini filed a revision in the Court of Sessions against the order of summoning passed by the trial Court and the same having been dismissed will not operate as a bar against him for approaching this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint. The objection of Smt. Sapra is rejected and it is held that the petition is maintainable.

As a result of above discussion, I quash the complaint and the subsequent proceedings in the complaint filed by Thakur Hari Singh in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, dated April 9, 1980, under Section 93 of the Lunacy Act, and under Sections 500, 466, 470, 342, 120B, IPC. Consequently, Criminal Misc. No. 4778M of 1987 and Crl. Misc. No. 4880M of 1988 are allowed.