Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Revision against Magistrate's order dismissing complaint or proceeding - Generally, revisions against interlocutory or quasi-final orders like dismissal of complaints or issuance of process are not maintainable under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C., which bars revising interlocutory orders ["Mahesh Kulakarni @ Kulkarni vs State of Telangana - Telangana"], ["Babulal VS Aanpurna Sarees - Rajasthan"], ["SHASHTRI HARIPRIYADASJI GURU PURANI HARIBALDASJI vs SWAMI DEVNANDANDASJI GURU SHASHTRI BHAGWAT SWARUPDASJI - Gujarat"].
Maintainability of Revision in Certain Cases - Revisions are permissible when the order challenged is not interlocutory, such as orders on cognizance or final judgments, and where the order is quasi-final or intermediate, the revision may be maintainable ["Mahesh Kulakarni @ Kulkarni vs State of Telangana - Telangana"], ["Lakshi Kanta Das S/o Lt. Haliram Das vs Baroda Das - Gauhati"].
Bar under Section 397(3) - Section 397(3) creates a bar on second revision where a revision has already been filed and dismissed, especially in cases related to orders like discharge or dismissal of complaints ["Vineet Sood vs Poonam Sood - Himachal Pradesh"], ["Mahesh Kulakarni @ Kulkarni vs State of Telangana - Telangana"].
Revisions against interlocutory orders like issuance of process or order of arrest - Courts have held that such orders are interlocutory and not revisable under Section 397(2). For example, orders directing investigation, issuing warrants, or non-application of mind at the stage of cognizance are not revisable ["Gurtej Singh @ Teji VS State of Punjab - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Surjeet Kumar Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh"].
Rejection of Revision for procedural non-compliance - Applications for revision that fail to comply with procedural rules, such as not submitting certified copies or proper records, are liable to be dismissed ["Palitha Samaranayake vs Dharmalankara Panditha Mohottalalage Jayasena Nilame - Court Of Appeal"], ["Murtaza S/o Sirrajjudin Malik VS TCL India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. - Madhya Pradesh"].
Legal position on inherent powers and jurisdiction - Courts have emphasized that revision under Section 397 is a discretionary remedy, and it cannot be used to upset orders that are not legally revisable, especially interlocutory ones ["Surjeet Kumar Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh"], ["Babulal VS Aanpurna Sarees - Rajasthan"].
Conclusion - Revisions against orders that are interlocutory (like issuance of process, investigation orders, or default dismissals) are generally not maintainable under Section 397, unless the order is quasi-final or falls outside the bar created by Section 397(2) and (3). Courts have consistently upheld that orders of cognizance, issuance of process, or preliminary investigations are not revisable under Section 397, reaffirming the principle that revision is not a substitute for appeal and should be exercised sparingly and within legal bounds ["Mahesh Kulakarni @ Kulkarni vs State of Telangana - Telangana"], ["Vineet Sood vs Poonam Sood - Himachal Pradesh"], ["SHASHTRI HARIPRIYADASJI GURU PURANI HARIBALDASJI vs SWAMI DEVNANDANDASJI GURU SHASHTRI BHAGWAT SWARUPDASJI - Gujarat"].
References:
In criminal proceedings, parties often seek to challenge orders through review or revision applications. A common query arises: revision against review application dismiss by magistrate not maintable under 397? This question touches on the interplay between review mechanisms and revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Understanding this is crucial for litigants navigating Magistrate Court decisions, as missteps can bar further remedies.
This post delves into the legal principles, precedents, and practical guidance, drawing from established case law. Note: This is general information and not specific legal advice; consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Generally, a revision against a review application dismissed by a Magistrate is not maintainable under Section 397 CrPC. Such dismissals are considered final, especially once the order is signed, and do not qualify as a 'case which has been decided' amenable to revision. The order merges into the final judgment, closing doors to revisional scrutiny by the same or higher court. Ravinder Bhatia VS Satnam Singh - Crimes (1989)
This principle upholds the finality of judicial orders, preventing endless re-litigation.
These points emphasize judicial economy and certainty.
Section 397 empowers High Courts or Sessions Judges to examine records for errors in findings, sentences, or orders. However, it excludes re-examining signed final orders or those merged into judgments. Ravinder Bhatia VS Satnam Singh - Crimes (1989) As stated, the scope is limited to correcting errors or irregularities in the original proceedings. It does not extend to re-examining final or merged orders, especially those that have been signed and are deemed conclusive. Ravinder Bhatia VS Satnam Singh - Crimes (1989)
Once signed, a Magistrate's order becomes conclusive. Review rejections are final, barring re-litigation. No statutory provision allows revisiting unless exceptional. Ravinder Bhatia VS Satnam Singh - Crimes (1989)
In related consumer forum contexts, dismissals for lack of power to set aside orders are upheld, mirroring CrPC finality: the District Consumer Forum dismiss the application as it has no power to set aside expert order... the Commission also does not power to set aside order under revision. 1.M/s. India Info Line Housing Finance Ltd., vs Sri. Sarath babu Jasthi
Courts have consistently reinforced non-maintainability:
Further, in domestic violence cases, revisions were dismissed where statutory appeals exist: the petitioner cannot invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the court as the statutory right of filing an appeal is provided under Section 29 of the Act. Neha Chaturvedi VS State - 2023 Supreme(Del) 4281
High Courts echo this. In maintenance disputes, while Section 397 is an alternative, hypertechnical dismissals are frowned upon, favoring conversion to appropriate remedies. Akanksha Arora VS Tanay Maben - 2025 1 Supreme 595 The Supreme Court noted: Availability of alternative remedy of criminal revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C, by itself, cannot be a good ground to dismiss application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Akanksha Arora VS Tanay Maben - 2025 1 Supreme 595
While Section 397 is typically unavailable, exceptions exist:
In nuisance proceedings, late review rejections were upheld as time-barred, with courts functus officio. RAM SEWAK RAI VS STATE OF U. P. - 2010 Supreme(All) 2380
Other cases highlight discharge where charges unsustainable, but via direct petitions, not layered reviews/revisions. N. GNANASHIVANANDA VS SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE - 2022 Supreme(Kar) 312
A revision under Section 397 CrPC against a Magistrate's review dismissal is generally not maintainable, prioritizing finality and merger principles. Litigants should explore appeals or inherent powers judiciously.
Key Takeaways:
- Review dismissals are final and merged. Ravinder Bhatia VS Satnam Singh - Crimes (1989)
- Section 397 limited to original errors, not finals.
- Use Section 482 exceptionally; prefer statutory paths.
- Precedents like Vidya Vati and Krishnaveni guide. Ravinder Bhatia VS Satnam Singh - Crimes (1989)
This framework aids informed decisions, but outcomes vary by facts. Always seek professional legal counsel. For more on CrPC remedies, explore our blog.
References:
1. Vikrant Tyres LTD. VS First Income Tax Officer, Mysore - 2001 1 Supreme 633: Finality of Magistrate review dismissals.
2. Ravinder Bhatia VS Satnam Singh - Crimes (1989): Merger and non-revisability precedents.
3. Additional cases: 1.M/s. India Info Line Housing Finance Ltd., vs Sri. Sarath babu Jasthi, Ikba S/o Chandulal Shaikh VS State of Maharashtra - 2024 Supreme(Bom) 25, Neha Chaturvedi VS State - 2023 Supreme(Del) 4281, Akanksha Arora VS Tanay Maben - 2025 1 Supreme 595, RAM SEWAK RAI VS STATE OF U. P. - 2010 Supreme(All) 2380, N. GNANASHIVANANDA VS SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE - 2022 Supreme(Kar) 312.
The learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance against the petitioner, and hence, he prayed to dismiss the revision. 8. ... As I have held that this revision is maintainable, now I proceed to examine the issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner, without application of mind into the material on record and assigning any valid reasons. ... The order of the Magistrate directing issu....
On the facts in that case, it was held that by provisions contained in Section 397(3), the revision is not maintainable. ... Section 397 (3) of CrPC creates a bar from filing a second revision. ... Thereafter, the appellant filed an application to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The Sessions Judge rejected all the contentions and framed the charges under Section 406. ... Ordinarily, when a re....
The Opposite parties/Complainant opposed application and after herein both sides the District Consumer Forum dismiss the application as it has no power to set aside expert order. ... Forum that the Forum does not have the power to set aside expert order is just and proper and the Commission also does not power to set aside order under revision unlike the National Commission. ... Petitioner in maintable as order passed by District Consumer Forum in advisable learned ....
It is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the State that the move before the High Court was really on application for revision of the order of the Magistrate releasing the truck. That is exactly what is prohibited under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. ... Revision No. 238 of 2014 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1121-C of 2010, whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioners against the order dated....
Where a petitioner fails to comply with the provisions of this rule, the Court may, ex mero motu at the instance of any party, dismiss such application." ... If the Petitioner seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to review and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated 21st July 2022, the Petitioner needs to file a duly certified copy of the Magistrate Court record. ... However, the learned High Court Judge had affirmed the Order of the learned Magistrate and dismis....
The decision in Father Thomas does not decide the issue as to whether the rejection of an application under Section 156 (3) would be amenable to a revision under Section 397 by the complainant or the informant whose application has been rejected; (ii) An order of the magistrate ... Thus, at the stage of directing investigation the Magistrate having not applied its mind as it has not taken cognizance of the matter, there is no order ....
Learned Revisional Court vide its order dated 10.05.2021 has dismissed the revision petition treating the order dated 03.04.2021, by which the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner, as interlocutory order and held that revision is not maintainable ... On 31.03.2021 on behalf of accused the counsel has moved an application under S.70(2) of the Cr.P.C. and public prosecutor has sought time to file reply to the said application. The le....
In that view of the matter, the High Court was not justified in rejecting the application for revision solely on the ground that the accused has not surrendered.” ... not surrendered. ... jurisdiction under Section 397 [Calling for records to exercise powers of revision: (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisf....
D.V.O.P.No.29 of 2012 dated 2.09.2012 by the Learned Judicial Magistrate and also not filing the Statutory Appeal under Section 29 of the Act, the Petitioners have directly approached this Court by filing the instant Criminal Revision petition under Section 397 and Section 401 of Cr.P.C. ... At the outset, Ld. counsel for the respondent No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the revision petition in the present form and has submitted that the revision petition is not#HL_....
It is further stated that the subject matter before the Magistrate Court is described in the schedule to this petition. However, in the schedule to the instant Revision Application, assessment No. 429 is not mentioned. ... In the final analysis, for the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment, I dismiss the Petitioner’s Revision Application with costs in the sum of Rs 25000/- Judge of the Court of Appeal Hon. M. Ahsan R. Marikar, J. ... For the ....
9. In Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan and Another, (2016) 4 SCC 30 this Court examined the relevant scope of Section 482 CrPC and Section 397 CrPC and held that nothing in CrPC, not even Section 397, can affect the amplitude of the inherent powers preserved in so many terms by the language of Section 482 CrPC. The inherent powers should not invade areas set apart for specific powers conferred under CrPC but there is no total ban on the exercise of inherent powers where abuse of process of Court or other extraordinary situation warrants exercise of inherent jurisdiction. The limitation is....
Availability of alternative remedy of Criminal Revision under Section 397 by itself cannot be a good ground to dismiss an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The learned Magistrate dismissed the application against which the petitioner filed the Criminal revision petition under Sec. 397 r/w sec. 401 of Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictional Revision Court. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. to discharge him for the alleged offences. The Revision Court dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner by confirming the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira in C.C. No. 361/2014.
The learned Judge distinguished the Division Bench judgment in U.P. Financial Corporation v. District Judge, 2001 (3) AWC 2052. The judgment in Algu v. Bhola and others, 2006(5) ADJ 585, was again on the issue, whether a revision against an order issuing show-cause notice to the defendant on an application seeking temporary injunction is maintainable? The Court, after considering other judgments, observed that an order directing simply issuance of notice to the defendants on an application for temporary injunction, if it occasions failure of justice or causes irreparable injury to the party ....
5. The revisionist then moved an application dated 12.9.2001 before Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned for setting aside the order dated 22.9.1998 passed on the basis of alleged compromise with this allegation that the said compromise never took place between the parties. The Review Application No. 12/14 has been dismissed by Sub Divisional Magistrate on 10.1.2003, against which this revision has been filed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
