Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 30002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.KUMARAPPAN, J
Jayaraman Mahavishnu – Appellant
Versus
State, by Inspector of Police, Uthukuli Police Station, Tiruppur District – Respondent
Crl.R.C.SR.No.6357 of 2026 | Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2024 | C.C.No.338 of 2019 | Cr.No.429 of 2024
For Petitioner: Mr.P.Sathyanathan
Second criminal revision maintainable if prior one withdrawn without merits adjudication; res judicata inapplicable.
Headnote:The petition challenges objections to filing a second criminal revision after the first was withdrawn without merits adjudication. Relevant provisions include Sections 438 r/w 442 of BNSS and Section 11 CPC, contrasted with Cr.P.C. lacking res judicata bar. Essential facts: prior revision Crl.R.C.No.1490 of 2025 dismissed as withdrawn. Court finds second revision maintainable absent merits decision. Issues framed: whether res judicata applies to criminal revisions and if withdrawal bars second filing. Ratio: Supreme Court in analogous cases held res judicata from CPC does not extend to criminal proceedings; no Cr.P.C. equivalent to CPC Order XXIII Rule 1(3); withdrawal without merits permits fresh revision (paras 6-7). Registry directed to number and post revision for admission.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. registry objects to second revision numbering. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner argues maintainability post-withdrawal. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court reviews precedents on res judicata inapplicability. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. second revision held maintainable; direct numbering. (Para 8) |
ORDER
The Registry has raised objections with regard to the numbering of the second revision and returned the same on 06.02.2026 with the following endorsement:-
“It may be stated as to how the second revision will lie before this Hon’ble Court.”
2. The same was represented by the petitioner on 10.02.2026 with the following endorsement:-
“All objections complied and represented.
The petitioner filed Crl.R.C.No.1490 of 2025 and the same has been dismissed as withdrawn on 28.08.2025. The Crl.R.C.No.1490 of 2025 has not decided on merit as it is only dismissed as withdrawn.
Hence, this Crl.R.C. is maintainable.”
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
4. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the earlier revision was only dismissed as withdrawn and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to file the present revision. It is his further submission that the principle of res judicata is not strictly applicable to criminal proceedings and, apart from that, the earlier order of this Court was not one rendered on merits.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Muskan Enterprises Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2024) 20 SCC 85, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after elaborately considering various aspects, held that the principle of res judicata, traceable to Section 11 CPC, does not apply to criminal proceedings and that there is no provision in the Cr.P.C. akin to Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that merely because no leave was granted to file a fresh appeal, the same would not debar the petitioner from preferring a second revision. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Ramachandra Puja Panda Samant Vs. Jambeswar Patra and another, reported in 1975 SCC OnLine Ori 100 wherein it was held that the bar of a second revision was confined only to cases where the earlier criminal revision had been dismissed on merits.
7. In this regard, it is also appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Poonam Chand Jain Vs. Fazru, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 631, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after referring to the judgment in Pramatha Nath Talukdar Vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, reported in AIR 1962 SC 876, held that even a second complaint is maintainable in exceptional circumstances. Further, in Jatinder Singh Vs. Ranjit Kaur, reported in (2001) 2 SCC 570, it was held that dismissal of the first complaint for default would not operate as a bar for entertaining the second complaint.
8. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that, since there was no adjudication on merits in the earlier revision, and the same was dismissed as withdrawn, the present second revision is maintainable. Hence, the Registry is directed to number the same, if it is otherwise in order and post the Criminal Revision for admission.
