Second Criminal Revision Petition By Same Person Is Barred But High Court Can Entertain Such Plea U/S 482 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that the second criminal revision petition by the same person is barred under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) but the High Court can entertain such plea by exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

Justice Sumeet Goel observed, "A second criminal revision petition filed by the same person is barred in view of statutory mandate contained in Section 397(3) and Section 399(2) of Cr.P.C., 1973. Nonetheless, the High Court in its plenary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 may entertain such a petition, if the facts/circumstances of the case in hand so warrant."

The High Court may entertain such like petition in case there is a grave miscarriage of justice or an abuse of process of the Courts or an abuse of the process of law or non-compliance of statutory procedure or there is failure of justice or other factors of akin nature, it added.

The Court was hearing plea of a man under Section 482 CrPC, for quashing of order passed by Judicial Magistrate whereby complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed and for quashing of order passed by Additional Sessions Judge whereby revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the above-said order passed by the Magistrate was also dismissed.

Facts In Brief

The petitioner had filed a complaint against the private respondents alleging commission of offences under Sections 323, 354, 452, 506 & 509 of IPC. An FIR was lodged under 354-A of IPC by one Mukesh Kumar allegedly on the basis of false story alleging that a woman was teased by the Mahant of the Temple. In an altercation took place between the complainant and accused persons, the accused persons allegedly infected injuries and outraged the modesty of a woman.

The complainant and his family members got themselves medically examined at a Civil Hospital,  but it was stated no ruqa was sent by the doctors to the Police. Aggrieved by the alleged atrocities caused by the accused persons, the complainant moved an application to the Superintendent of Police, but no action was statedly taken which necessitated the petitioner to file a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate. The Magistrate declined to summon the private respondents (herein) finding that there exist no sufficient grounds to summon the accused persons and accordingly the complaint was dismissed. The revision petition preferred by the petitioner before the Sessions Court also met the same fate and hence was dismissed.

Observation

After hearing the submissions, the Court considered, "whether a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 is maintainable in a case where such a petition tantamounts to being a second criminal revision petition by same person in view of statutory prohibitions contained in Sections 397(3) and 399(2) of Cr.P.C. 1973."

Justice Goel observed that, a critical thorough analysis of the provisions of Sections 397(3) & 399(2) of CrPC decidedly "reflects that a second revision petition by the same person is statutorily prohibited."

"Consequently, a person cannot be permitted to resort to the remedy of second revision petition when the same is evidently barred by statutory provisions. The more pertinent question that arises is; whether the High Court is denuded of its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973; to entertain such a petition," the Court added.

Referring to Shakuntala Devi and others vs. Chamru Mahto & Anr., (2009) the Court said, "ordinarily, the High Court ought not to interfere in a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 when such petition actually constitutes a second revision petition, preferred by the same person, in view of specific statutory bar."

However, the High Court has suo moto powers in terms of Section 401 of CrPC; inherent plenary powers in terms of Section 482 of CrPC as also powers of continuous supervisory jurisdiction under Section 483 of CrPC, said the judge.

In Talima vs. State of Haryana and others (2024) the Punjab & Haryana High Court had considered in detail the nature, scope and extent of powers of the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC and has held that the High Court has unbridled, unfettered and plenary powers under Section 482 of CrPC.

The Court opined that, "It goes without saying that the High Court ought to exercise such powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case in hand keeping in view the salutary objective(s) sought to be achieved viz., to give effect to any order under the Cr.P.C, 1973 or to prevent abuse of process of any Court/law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

Perusing the order passed by the Trial Court, the Court said, "no compelling or accentuating facts have been brought forward that would persuade this Court to hold that there is glaring defect(s) or there is manifest error in the orders passed by the Courts below which has resulted into grave miscarriage of justice."

The judge also said that, it is trite law that summoning of any person in a criminal case is a matter of grave concern and the same should be exercised sparingly unless there being prima facie evidence on record qua the alleged occurrence.

Furthermore, the Court noted that, "one FIR No.49 dated 09.04.2013 has been registered at Police Station Buria against the petitioner-complainant (herein) in which the petitioner has been facing trial and the instant complaint has been filed thereafter."

Therefore, the possibility that the instant complaint is a counter-blast to the aforesaid FIR lodged against the petitioner also cannot be ruled out, the Court added while dismissing the plea.

Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tejasvi Sheokand, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Ms. Mahima Yashpal, DAG, Haryana.

Case Title: XXX v. XXX

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 224