The court held that it will not interfere with concurrent findings of trial and revisional courts dismissing a complaint, especially given the statutory bar against second revisions under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C., unless manifest illegality or perversity is demonstrated.

Order

The present criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS has been filed challenging the order dated 27.05.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar District Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”) whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed as well as order dated 25.02.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar District Hanumangarh of the revisional court wherein the order of learned trial Court was upheld.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders have been passed without proper application of mind and without taking into consideration the complaint filed by him.

This Court has gone through the impugned orders.

The petitioner had filed a complaint against the respondents.

After recording of the evidence, the learned trial court did not find it appropriate to proceed further the dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr. P.C.

Aggrieved by the same, a revision petition was preferred; however, the same has also been dismissed.

Upon filing of complaint, the evidence of the complainant was recorded. Learned magistrate considered the statements of all the witnesses and after duly examining the same found that no prima facie case was found against the accused and hence did not find any case to proceed further against the accused.

Thereafter the revisional Court has also examined the evidence put in support of the complaint by complainant and did not find any error in the order passed by learned Magistrate.

Both the Courts have duly examined the entire material on record and failed to find any ground to proceed against the accused. Their is concurrent finding of both the court below.

Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure enacts a clear prohibition against entertaining a second revision at the behest of the same party. The object underlying this statutory restraint is to ensure finality in adjudication, to maintain procedural discipline, and to prevent multiplicity of challenges that would otherwise impede the expeditious administration of criminal justice.

In the case in hand, the petitioner has not been able to point out any perversity, arbitrariness and material irregularity or jurisdictional infirmity in the concurrent orders passed by the court below. No exceptional or extraordinary circumstances has been demonstrated which compels exercise of extraordinary powers by this Court under Section 528 BNSS.

The order of the learned trial Court discloses reasoned analysis of the relevant consideration and reflects conscious application on mind. The learned revisional Court has also upon independent examination of the matter has concurred with the reasoning and has found no case for interference in the findings of the Court below. The orders under challenge cannot be characterized as capricious or perverse.

In view of the statutory bar against the second revision coupled with absence of any manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice, this Court finds no basis to interfere in the orders impugned dated 27.05.2024 passed by the learned trial Court as well as dated 25.02.2026 passed by the revisional Court. Consequently, the present petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.

With these observations, the present criminal misc. petition is dismissed.

Stay application and all pending applications, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.