1. Petition under Section 482 CrPC filed in High Court following dismissal of a revision petition by the Court of Session. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 139
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Jayachandra Reddy, M. M. Punchhi
JITENDER KUMAR JAIN, APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF DELHI AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Criminal Appeal No. ... of 1995 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3768 of 1994),
decided on January 23, 1995.
Important Points
The main legal point established is the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 to scrutinize the proceedings of subordinate courts and the need to distinguish its separate powers under Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Subject
Criminal Law - Jurisdiction and Powers of High Court
Act Referred
Headnote
Section 482 - Jurisdiction of High Court - The court held that the High Court failed to distinguish its separate powers under Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It emphasized that the Court of Session, being subordinate to the High Court, is subject to scrutiny by the High Court under its inherent power under Section 482. The High Court's dismissal of the petition under the premise that a second revision petition does not lie before it was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the High Court for reconsideration.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant moved the High Court of Delhi under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which the High Court assumed to be under Section 397(3) and dismissed, stating that the revision petition preferred by the appellant had been dismissed by the Court of Session.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the High Court failed to distinguish its separate powers under Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It emphasized the High Court's inherent power to scrutinize the proceedings of the Court of Session and set aside the impugned order, remitting the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration.
Issues: The issues revolved around the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the dismissal of the appellant's petition based on the premise that a second revision petition does not lie before the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 to scrutinize the proceedings of the Court of Session, being subordinate to the High Court, and set aside the High Court's dismissal of the petition, remitting the matter back for reconsideration.
Final Decision: The impugned order of the High Court was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the High Court for reconsideration.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the bar on second revisions under Section 397 CrPC precludes the High Court from exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. (Para 2 )
3. The High Court failed to distinguish between its separate revisional powers under Section 397 and inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Para 2 )
4. Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC allow the High Court to scrutinize proceedings of subordinate courts, notwithstanding the bar on second revisions under Section 397. (Para 2 )
5. Impugned order set aside and matter remitted to the High Court for reconsideration. (Para 2 )
6. Does the bar on second revisions under Section 397 CrPC preclude the High Court from exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC?
No. While a second revision petition does not lie under Section 397 when one is dismissed by the Court of Session, the High Court can still scrutinize proceedings using its inherent power under Section 482. (Para 2 )
7. Can the High Court scrutinize the proceedings of a Court of Session under Section 482 CrPC?
Yes. Because the Court of Session is subordinate to the High Court, its proceedings are open to scrutiny by the High Court in the exercise of its inherent power under Section 482. (Para 2 )
8. Is the High Court required to grant relief in every petition filed under Section 482 CrPC?
No. The High Court retains the discretion not to interfere in a matter even when examining a case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Para 2 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant had moved the High Court of Delhi in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking its inherent jurisdiction. The High Court assumed the petition to be as if one under Section 397(2) [sic 397(3)l of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which according to it did not lie since the revision petition preferred by the appellant had been dismissed by the Court of Session. We are of the view that the High Court failed to distinguish its separate powers under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as also under Section 482 of the said Code. It is true that a second revision petition does not lie before the High Court when one is dismissed by the Court of Session. Still the Court of Session is a court subordinate to the High Court and, as such, its proceedings are open to scrutiny by the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court in these circumstances, should not have dismissed the petition of the appellant on the premise as it has done. It is otherwise open to the High Court not to interfere in a matter when examining a case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration. It is ordered accordingly.
