Legal Analysis on the Bar of Revision by Same Parties under Section 397 CrPC

Overview

The question pertains to the prohibition of filing a second revision petition by the same parties under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in India. The legal documents provided outline the relevant case law and principles governing this issue.

Key Legal Principles

Prohibition of Second Revision

• Section 397(3) CrPC explicitly bars the filing of a second revision petition by the same parties once a revision has been dismissed by the Sessions Court. The Supreme Court in Kailash Verma v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation emphasized that this prohibition is strict and that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should not be used as a substitute for a second revision Shashi Mahajan VS Sudha Sharma, W/o Suraj Parkash Sharma - J&K.
• The Rajathi v. C.Ganesan case further reinforces this principle, stating that once a revision is dismissed by the Sessions Court, the High Court cannot entertain a second revision petition under Section 482 CrPC Shashi Mahajan VS Sudha Sharma, W/o Suraj Parkash Sharma - J&K.

Inherent Powers of the High Court

• While Section 397(3) bars a second revision, the Supreme Court has recognized that the High Court retains inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. However, these powers should be exercised sparingly and cannot be invoked to circumvent the prohibition against second revisions Muhstaq Ahmad Mir VS Khatijja - J&K.
• The case of Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra clarifies that the inherent powers of the High Court are not a substitute for the statutory provisions of the CrPC, particularly regarding the prohibition of second revisions Muhstaq Ahmad Mir VS Khatijja - J&K.

Judicial Precedents

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Manjla @ Mahendra & Anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh ruled that a second revision petition is not maintainable under Section 482 CrPC as there is no provision for such a filing Shashi Mahajan VS Sudha Sharma, W/o Suraj Parkash Sharma - J&K.
• The Delhi High Court in Narender V. State reiterated that a second revision petition disguised as one under Section 482 is barred by Section 397(3) CrPC Kulwant Singh VS State Of Rajasthan - Rajasthan.

Exceptions and Counterarguments

• There are instances where the High Court''s inherent powers may be invoked if the circumstances warrant it, particularly to prevent miscarriage of justice. However, these instances are exceptional and must be justified Muhstaq Ahmad Mir VS Khatijja - J&K.
• The Supreme Court in Krishnan v. Krishnaveni acknowledged that even if a second revision is barred, the High Court''s inherent powers under Section 482 may still be available, but this is contingent on the specific facts of the case Ravi Vansha Narayan Mathur And Another VS State And Another - Delhi01100132317.

Conclusion

The legal framework clearly establishes that a second revision petition by the same parties is barred under Section 397(3) CrPC. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC cannot be utilized to bypass this prohibition. Legal practitioners should be cautious and ensure that any petitions filed do not contravene this established principle.

Recommendations

• Advise clients against filing a second revision petition under the guise of invoking inherent powers unless there are compelling reasons to justify such an approach.
• Consider exploring other legal remedies or avenues if a revision has already been dismissed by the Sessions Court.

References

• Shashi Mahajan VS Sudha Sharma, W/o Suraj Parkash Sharma - J&K
• Kulwant Singh VS State Of Rajasthan - Rajasthan
• Muhstaq Ahmad Mir VS Khatijja - J&K
• Ravi Vansha Narayan Mathur And Another VS State And Another - Delhi
• 01100132317]