Mohammad Hanif Khan v. Shamim Begum

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an application in revision against the order of Judicial Magistrate I, Shahjahanpur dated 5-8-1975 directing the applicant to pay Rs. 125/- per month as maintenance allowance to his wife, Smt. Shamim Begum (opposite party No. 1) under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.) 1973. The applicant filed a Criminal Revision (No. 77 of 1975) on 10-10-1975 in the court of the Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur against the same Magistrate's order. That Sessions revision was pending when the applicant filed the present revision in the High Court on 17-11-1975. The Sessions Judge later dismissed the Sessions revision on 18-2-1976 as not pressed.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a High Court may entertain a revision application under Section 397 Cr. P.C. when the same person has already made an application in revision to the Sessions Judge (i.e., the maintainability of the second revision application under Section 397(3) Cr. P.C.).

Arguments of the Parties

Opposite Party No. 1's Arguments

• The learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 raised a preliminary objection that the present revision application was not maintainable.

Applicant's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the applicant's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court relied on sub-section (3) of Section 397, Cr. P.C. 1973, which it quoted: "If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them."

Applying a plain reading of Section 397(3), the Court reasoned that because the applicant had already made a revision application to the Sessions Judge on 10-10-1975, the High Court could not entertain the subsequent revision filed on 17-11-1975. The Court emphasized that it is the mere making of a revision application before one forum (here, the Sessions Judge) that renders a second revision by the same person before the other forum (here, the High Court) not maintainable. The Court expressly stated that a later dismissal of the Sessions Judge's revision (on 18-2-1976 as not pressed) does not retroactively confer power on the High Court to entertain the revision filed on 17-11-1975. Thus, the bar arises from the initial filing before the Sessions Judge, not from any final decision by that Judge.

Holding and Implications

REJECTED

Holding: The High Court rejected the applicant's revision application as not maintainable under Section 397(3), Cr. P.C. 1973.

Implications: The direct effect is that the applicant's second revision filed in the High Court was not entertained and was rejected. The opinion confines itself to the application of Section 397(3) to the facts—stating that the making of a prior revision application before the Sessions Judge bars a subsequent revision by the same person in the High Court—and does not discuss broader legal consequences or purport to establish a new precedent beyond that statutory application.