Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 23087
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M. Nagaprasanna, J
Sachidanamurthy V.C. – Appellant
Versus
B. Satish – Respondent
WP No. 6517 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sachidanamurthy V.C. (Party In-Person)
A coordinate bench's order in revisional jurisdiction is binding on the court; a party cannot circumvent such an order by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction to re-litigate the same issue after the dismissal of their revision petition.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - Section 528 - Writ jurisdiction - Propriety of challenging a coordinate bench's decision - Petitioner sought to set aside a Magistrate's order rejecting a private complaint and a High Court coordinate bench's revisional order affirming said rejection - Court held that a coordinate bench order is binding and cannot be circumvented by filing a new petition under Section 528 of BNSS. (Paras 3, 4, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, having previously been discharged in a criminal case, filed a private complaint against several individuals alleging malicious prosecution. The Magistrate rejected the complaint. The petitioner's criminal revision petition against this rejection was also dismissed by the High Court coordinate bench. The petitioner subsequently filed this writ petition again seeking to set aside both the Magistrate's order and the High Court's revisional order.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the coordinate bench had already heard the matter on merits and dismissed the revision petition, confirming the rejection of the private complaint. The court held that the coordinate bench's order is binding and cannot be reviewed by sitting in parallel jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.
Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226/227 or Section 528 of the BNSS can be used to challenge or set aside an order passed by a coordinate bench of the same court in revisional jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: A judicial order passed by a coordinate bench in its revisional jurisdiction is binding upon the court; judicial discipline and the rule of precedent prevent an attempt to bypass such an order through the filing of a successive petition under different statutory provisions.
Result: Petition disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. coordinate bench orders are binding and cannot be challenged in a fresh petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO 1. TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT IN PCR NO.187/2022, DATED 29/11/2024 FOR THE OFFENSE PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 109, 504, 506, 120(B), 203, 211, 167, 192, 499 R/W 34 OF IPC, ANNEXURE-C, AND ALSO IMPUGNED ORDER DELIVERED BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN CRL.RP NO.268/2025, ANNEXURE-D AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO PROSECUTE ALL THE ACCUSED, IN ACCORDANCE TO THE OFFENSES COMMITTED, TO SECURE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner-in-person is at the doors of this Court seeking the following prayer:
"i. To set aside the order passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi, Ramanagara District in PCR No.187/2022, dt:29/11/2024 for the offense punishable U/s 143, 109, 504, 506, 120(B), 2023, 211, 167, 192, 499 R/w 34 of IPC, Annexure-C, and also impugned order delivered by Hon'ble High Court in CRL.RP No.268/2025, Annexure-D and permit the petitioner to prosecute all the accused, in accordance to the offenses committed, to secure the ends of justice.
ii. Pass any such orders as deems fit, this Hon'ble court as per the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice."
2. Heard the petitioner-in-person and have perused the material on record.
3. Against the petitioner, a crime in Crime No.187/2022 was registered. After filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner files an application seeking his discharge from the array of accused in Crime No.187/2022. The petitioner comes to be discharged. After the petitioner comes to be discharged, he files a private complaint in PCR No.187/2022 seeking action against those persons who had sought to maliciously prosecute the petitioner. Finding no merit in the complaint, the concerned Court in terms of its order dated 29.11.2024, rejects the private complaint. Against the rejection, the petitioner prefers a Criminal Revision Petition before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.R.P.No.268/2025 challenging the order dated 29.11.2024. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court affirms the said finding rendered by the concerned Court rejecting the private complaint. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the concerned Court and that of the Co-ordinate Bench, the petitioner has preferred the subject petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS.
4. The petitioner-in-person submits that the power under Section 528 of the BNSS is wide enough event to undo an order passed in the revisional jurisdiction by the Co-ordinate Bench and therefore, this Court should entertain the petition as the complaint is closed even without hearing the petitioner.
5. The said submission is unacceptable for the reason that, if the case of the petitioner had remained at the stage of private complaint being registered, it would have been an altogether different circumstance. The petitioner challenges invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court in Crl.R.P.No.268/2025. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by reasoned order rejects the revision. The order reads as follows:
"3. Petitioner herein has filed a private complaint in PCR.No.187/2022 before the Court of Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Magadi, Ramanagara District, against the respondents alleging that they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 109, 120B, 504, 506, 167, 203, 192, 211, 499 read with 34 IPC.
4. The gist of allegations made against the accused is, that accused no.1 had filed a false criminal case against the petitioner, and accused no.2 had colluded with accused no.1 and had filed a charge sheet in the said case against the petitioner and a criminal case was registered against the p
