1993 AIR SC 1361, it has been held that learned Sessions Judge’s powers under section 397 (3) Cr.P.C. while hearing the revision, are equivalent to that of High Court and anyone cannot avail two opportunities of filing revision under the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C.. When once his revision was found unsubstantial by the learned Sessions Judge under section 397 (1) Cr.P.C., then the remedy under section 482 Cr.P.C. is barred and he cannot file this petition. 5. So in view of the above, this petition is legally barred and is not maintainable under section 482 Cr.P.C..

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 676 of 2007 Mohd. Alim. ………. Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ………. Respondents. Present : Mr. R.K.S. Verma, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. By way of this criminal misc. application, order dated 17.08.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar is under challenge. Learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar dismissed the revision no. 186 of 2007, which was preferred against the order of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee dated 16.04.2007. 2. The facts are that applicant Mohd. Alim resides in the village Sikroda, within the territorial jurisdiction of police station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar, by constructing a hut upon the same land, which he alleges to inherit from his parents. He wanted to raise brick construction over the said land by removing the hut and that was interfered by opposite parties no. 2 to 8. It is alleged that on 26.03.2007, opposite parties no. 2 to 8 came at the spot armed with weapons and set ablaze his hut. The household articles, present in the hut, were also thrown out, when resisted, he and female members of his family were extended threats to be killed. It also appears that police intervened in the matter and challaned both the parties under section 107, 116 Cr.P.C. and a report dated 07.04.2007 was submitted by Tehsildar, Roorkee, after the spot inspection to superior officers. That report favoured Mohd. Alim (applicant) and was against the opposite party. Mohd. Alim 2 moved an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. invoking the power of the Magistrate for registering a case against opposite parties but the same was dismissed on 16.04.2007 on merits. Mohd. Alim preferred a revision against the order of dismissal but could not get any relief and the revision was also dismissed being devoid of any merit. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Sessions Judge, this petition has been filed. 3. As has been stated above by this Court that both the parties have been challaned under section 107, 116 Cr.P.C., inasmuch as, Mohd. Alim could not show any proof of ownership upon the land in question. It is also not clear as to from what long period, he is in possession over the land and the contents stated by him in his application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. were self contradictory, as has been recorded by learned Sessions Judge, while disposing of his revision. 4. Therewithal in case of Dharampal and others Vs. Ramshri and others reported in 1993 AIR SC 1361, it has been held that learned Sessions Judge’s powers under section 397 (3) Cr.P.C. while hearing the revision, are equivalent to that of High Court and anyone cannot avail two opportunities of filing revision under the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C.. When once his revision was found unsubstantial by the learned Sessions Judge under section 397 (1) Cr.P.C., then the remedy under section 482 Cr.P.C. is barred and he cannot file this petition. 5. So in view of the above, this petition is legally barred and is not maintainable under section 482 Cr.P.C.. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 16.09.2011 SKS