JUDGMENT
B.R. Arora, J.
1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated November 3, 1988, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur, dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner.
2. Complainant Mohan Lal filed a complaint against Vidhyadhar for offence Under Section 477 I.P.C. in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur. The learned Judicial Magistrate recorded the statements of the complainant and Ramvilas and took cognizance against the accused Under Section 477/204 I.P.C. by his order dated August 2, 1978, and issued process. The accused appeared before the learned Magistrate or November 11, 1977, and thereafter the arguments were heard for framing the charge and after hearing the argument, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the ingredients of any of the offence have not been made-out and he, therefore, refused to frame the charge against the accused and discharged him. He, also, ordered for initiating the proceedings Under Section 193 Cr. P.C. against the petitioner. Dissatisfied with this order, passed by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner Additional Sessions Judge, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, dismissed the revision petition by his order dated November 3, 1988.
3. Heard learned for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, as well as the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. After going through the judgments passed by the Courts below, I am of the opinion that no illegality has been committed by the learned lower Court in discharging the evidence on record, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly came to the conclusion that a false case has been instituted against the accused. The findings arrived-at by the learned lower Courts are perfectly just and proper and does not require any interference.
4. Even otherwise, the accused-petitioner has filed this petition Under Section 482 Cr. P.C., though there is a specific bar provided Under Section 397 Cr. P.C. for maintainability of the Section revision petition. Merely by changing the nominclature and mentioning the petition Under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the nature of the petition will not be changed. By this petition, the petitioner wants to get the order passed by the lower Courts revised and in this view of the matter, the petition Under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is nothing but a Section revision petition, though styled as petition Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. The Supreme Court, in the case of Ranjan Kumar v. The State of Karnataka 1990 SCC (Cr.) 537) dealing with the maintainability of the petition Under Section 482 Cr. P.C., has observed as under:
Where a revision petition is dismissed by the Sessions Court, a Section revision would not lie to the High Court. Merely by saying that the jurisdiction of the High Court for exercise of its inherent power was being invoked the statutory bar could not have been over-come. If that was to be permitted, every revision application facing the bar of Section 397 of the Code could be labelled as one Under Section 482 Cr. P.C.
5. In view of the statutory bar of Section revision laid down by the Code of Criminal Procedure Under Section 397 the party cannot be allowed to take recourse of Section 482 Cr. P.C. and thereby circumvent the provisions of Section 397 Cr. P.C., particulary when none of the conditions required for the exercise of the inherent powers are present in the case.
6. Consequently, this miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioner, has got no force and is hereby dismissed.