HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.357 of 2024 M/s Prakash Electricals ………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ………Respondents Mr. Antriksh Bhaskar, learned counsel for the applicant through video conferencing. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General for the State. Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for respondent no.2. Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) By means of the present C482 application, the applicant is seeking following reliefs:- “(i) Set aside the order dated 23.02.2024 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Tehri in Revision Petition No.36 of 2023 and hold the Revision Petition No.36 of 2023 as non maintainable in view of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. (ii) Restore the order dated 28.10.2023 passed by learned Trial Court in Case No.1577 of 2022.” 2. The facts in brief are that the present applicant is impleaded as an accused in a complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 bearing Criminal Case No.1577 of 2022. The dispute arose when the present applicant moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking the re-examination of present respondent no.2. The said application was allowed vide order dated 28.10.2023. The respondent no.2 thereafter, against the said order moved a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tehri, which was allowed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tehri vide order dated 1 23.02.2024 and thereby set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court. 3. The counsel for the applicant submits that the learned revisional court has committed a grave irregularity by allowing the said revision as the order dated 28.10.2023 passed by learned Trial Court in which Section 311 application was allowed was a interlocutory order and Section 397(2) clearly bars any revisional court to interfere with an interlocutory order. 4. The counsel for the respondent no.2 relying upon his counter affidavit restricted his arguments only to the point that as the present applicant had an opportunity to challenge the order of learned Sessions Judge via a revision petition, this C482 application is not maintainable. 5. The applicant in his rejoinder affidavit submitted that it is settled legal proposition that this Hon’ble Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of law. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the intention of the legislature in enacting Section 482 Cr.P.C. was to provide powers to this Court in unforeseen circumstances when no other efficacious remedy was available to the applicant under the Code of Criminal Procedure. But by the bare perusal of records, it clearly transpires that the applicant had an option to go in revision against the impugned order dated 23.02.2024 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Tehri as the applicant 2 was the opposite party before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Petition No.36 of 2023 and therefore, if he was aggrieved by the order of Sessions Judge, he could have filed revision before the High Court. My view is further fortified by the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Krishnan and another vs. Krishnaveni and another; 1997 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 544, whereby, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that a second revision is not maintainable before the High Court at the instance of the same party whose revision has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge. But the party who was opposite party before the Sessions Judge in the revision, if aggrieved by order of the Sessions Judge, can maintain a revision before the High Court. 7. Accordingly, the present C482 application is hereby dismissed. Needless to say, the applicant is free to challenge the impugned order passed by learned revisional court by availing appropriate remedies. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 07.07.2025 Ravi 3