AI Overview...

Bar on Second Revision under Section 397(3) CrPC - The law explicitly prohibits filing a second revision against the same order once it has been dismissed or decided, as per Section 397(3) CrPC. Multiple sources emphasize that once a revision is dismissed or not pressed, a subsequent revision by the same parties is barred, preventing circumvention of the statutory restriction Vinay Thakur VS State of Bihar - Patna, Vineet Sood vs Poonam Sood - Himachal Pradesh, Vijay Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Ram Pravesh Singh vs Union of India through CBI - Jharkhand, Manjunath Urf Manju S/O. Jambanna Agastavar VS State Of Karnataka Rep. By Karwar Town Police Station, Through State Pubic Prosecutor - Karnataka.
Scope and Limitations of Revision Powers - Section 397 CrPC grants the High Court revisional jurisdiction primarily over final orders, and its exercise is limited to prevent re-examination of interlocutory or same-subject orders. Interference with interlocutory orders is further restricted under Section 397(2), and the High Court cannot bypass these restrictions by invoking inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC Vijay Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Ram Pravesh Singh vs Union of India through CBI - Jharkhand, Dilshad Hussain vs Pushpa Devi - Delhi, Smritee Ojha @ Smriti Ojha @ Smritee @ Smrite VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand.
Prohibition of Multiple Revisions - The law bars parties from seeking multiple revisions against the same order, especially after a revision has been dismissed or not pressed. This is reinforced by case law, which clarifies that subsequent attempts to revisit the same order are not maintainable and would amount to circumventing the statutory bar Vijay Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Ram Pravesh Singh vs Union of India through CBI - Jharkhand, Manjunath Urf Manju S/O. Jambanna Agastavar VS State Of Karnataka Rep. By Karwar Town Police Station, Through State Pubic Prosecutor - Karnataka.
Conversion of Petitions and Proper Remedies - Courts have recognized that petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC can sometimes be converted into revision petitions under Section 397 CrPC if appropriate, but the core principle remains that second revisions are barred if the first has been dismissed or decided on merits Akanksha Arora VS Tanay Maben - Supreme Court.
Main Insight - The consistent judicial stance across multiple decisions underscores that the same parties cannot file a second revision under Section 397 CrPC against the same order once it has been disposed of or dismissed, as the law explicitly bars such second attempts. This ensures finality and prevents abuse of the revisional jurisdiction Vinay Thakur VS State of Bihar - Patna, Vineet Sood vs Poonam Sood - Himachal Pradesh, Vijay Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Ram Pravesh Singh vs Union of India through CBI - Jharkhand.

Analysis and Conclusion

The law under Section 397(3) CrPC clearly bars parties from approaching the High Court with a second revision against the same order. Courts have repeatedly held that once a revision is dismissed or not pressed, subsequent revisions are not maintainable, and attempting to do so would constitute circumvention of statutory restrictions. The primary purpose of this provision is to uphold finality and prevent multiplicity of revisional proceedings, ensuring judicial efficiency and consistency. Therefore, the revision by the same parties under Section 397 CrPC is barred once the initial revision has been disposed of, confirming the principle that the same parties cannot re-agitate the same matter through a second revision Vinay Thakur VS State of Bihar - Patna, Vineet Sood vs Poonam Sood - Himachal Pradesh, Vijay Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Ram Pravesh Singh vs Union of India through CBI - Jharkhand.

References:- Vinay Thakur VS State of Bihar - Patna- Vineet Sood vs Poonam Sood - Himachal Pradesh- Vijay Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Ram Pravesh Singh vs Union of India through CBI - Jharkhand- Manjunath Urf Manju S/O. Jambanna Agastavar VS State Of Karnataka Rep. By Karwar Town Police Station, Through State Pubic Prosecutor - Karnataka- Dilshad Hussain vs Pushpa Devi - Delhi- Smritee Ojha @ Smriti Ojha @ Smritee @ Smrite VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand

Second Revision by Same Parties Barred Under Section 397 CrPC?

In the realm of criminal procedure in India, navigating the revisional jurisdiction can be tricky for litigants and lawyers alike. A common query arises: The Revision by same Parties under 397 Crpc is Barred. This statement captures a fundamental principle under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), specifically Section 397(3), which prohibits the same parties from filing a second revision petition against the same order. This bar aims to ensure finality in proceedings, prevent abuse of process, and promote judicial efficiency.

This blog post delves into the legal framework, key judicial precedents, exceptions, and practical implications. While this analysis draws from established case law, it is for informational purposes only and does not constitute specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.

Understanding Section 397 CrPC: The Revisional Jurisdiction

Section 397 CrPC empowers the High Court or Sessions Judge to call for and examine the record of any proceeding for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order. However, this power is not unlimited.

Sub-section (2): Bars interference with interlocutory orders to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Sub-section (3): Explicitly states, If any application under this section has been rejected by any Court before which it is filed, no second application by the same parties shall be entertained by any other Court. This is the core of the prohibition on second revisions. Shashi Mahajan VS Sudha Sharma, W/o Suraj Parkash Sharma - J&K

As highlighted in multiple rulings, once a revision is dismissed by the Sessions Court, a second revision before the High Court is not maintainable under Sections 397, 399, or 401 CrPC. Bibhuti Bhushan Prasad Amar, Son of Late Vishwanath Prasad Amar vs Union of India through CBI - 2025 Supreme(Jhk) 444 - 2025 0 Supreme(Jhk) 444

The Strict Bar on Second Revisions by Same Parties

The Supreme Court has consistently upheld this bar to prevent parties from forum-shopping or prolonging litigation.

In Kailash Verma v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation, the apex court emphasized that Section 397(3) is a strict prohibition, and inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot substitute for a second revision. Shashi Mahajan VS Sudha Sharma, W/o Suraj Parkash Sharma - J&K
Rajathi v. C.Ganesan reinforces that post-dismissal by Sessions Court, the High Court cannot entertain a second revision under Section 482. Shashi Mahajan VS Sudha Sharma, W/o Suraj Parkash Sharma - J&K

Lower courts echo this:- The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Manjla @ Mahendra & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh ruled a second revision under Section 482 is not maintainable, as no such provision exists. Shashi Mahajan VS Sudha Sharma, W/o Suraj Parkash Sharma - J&K- Delhi High Court in Narender v. State held that a petition disguised as Section 482 cannot bypass the Section 397(3) bar. Kulwant Singh VS State Of Rajasthan - Rajasthan

From additional precedents: It is contended that second Revision by the same party is barred under Sub-Section (3) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C.Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited VS State of Rajasthan Through PP - 2019 Supreme(Raj) 2774 - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 2774 This sentiment is widespread, with courts dismissing attempts at second revision in the garb of petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Sukhjinder Singh VS Buta Singh - 2019 Supreme(P&H) 1599 - 2019 0 Supreme(P&H) 1599

Key Quote: Further, in view of the provisions u/s 397(3) CrPC, a second revision against the same order with the same prayer is not maintainable. Bibhuti Bhushan Prasad Amar, Son of Late Vishwanath Prasad Amar vs Union of India through CBI - 2025 Supreme(Jhk) 444 - 2025 0 Supreme(Jhk) 444

Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC: Not a Backdoor?

While Section 397(3) bars statutory revisions, the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 allow quashing proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice. However, these are exercised sparingly.

Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra clarifies that Section 482 powers are not a substitute for statutory remedies like revision. Muhstaq Ahmad Mir VS Khatijja - J&K
Courts warn against using Section 482 to circumvent the bar: However, a person cannot be permitted to do indirectly what he cannot do directly. Sukhjinder Singh VS Buta Singh - 2019 Supreme(P&H) 1599 - 2019 0 Supreme(P&H) 1599

Exceptional Use: Second revision is barred under section 397(2) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be entertained only in exceptional and rare cases only if High Court is satisfied that continuation of trial would result in gross abuse of process of law. Aditya Prasad Dube VS State - 2017 Supreme(Del) 4876 - 2017 0 Supreme(Del) 4876

Judicial Precedents Reinforcing the Bar

Numerous High Court decisions underscore finality:

| Case/Reference | Key Holding ||---------------|-------------|| Krishnan v. KrishnaveniRavi Vansha Narayan Mathur And Another VS State And Another - Delhi Visual Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. vs Executive Engineer (E) Plewd, CPWD - Delhi (2022) | High Court's Section 482 powers may be available post-bar, but only on specific facts to prevent miscarriage of justice. || Sudesh and others (CRM-M-30350-2018) Baldev Singh VS Jagroop Singh - 2019 Supreme(P&H) 655 - 2019 0 Supreme(P&H) 655 | Petition under 482 after revision is a second revision and barred. || Various rulings Vinay Thakur VS State of Bihar - Patna Vineet Sood vs Poonam Sood - Himachal Pradesh Vijay Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Ram Pravesh Singh vs Union of India through CBI - Jharkhand | Once dismissed or not pressed, subsequent revisions by same parties barred to prevent circumvention. |

The Bar on Second Revision under Section 397(3) CrPC is explicit: The law explicitly prohibits filing a second revision against the same order once it has been dismissed or decided. Vinay Thakur VS State of Bihar - Patna

Exceptions and When Inherent Powers May Apply

Though rare, exceptions exist:- To prevent miscarriage of justice or gross abuse of process. Muhstaq Ahmad Mir VS Khatijja - J&K- If the first revision was not decided on merits or new grounds emerge (though typically not).- Scope of Revision u/s 397 & 401: High Court exercises appellate-like powers sparingly in supervision. Bablu @ Lal Panda VS State of M. P. - 2023 Supreme(MP) 292 - 2023 0 Supreme(MP) 292

Counterargument: Petitions under 482 may be converted to revisions if fitting, but post-dismissal, the bar holds. Akanksha Arora VS Tanay Maben - Supreme Court

A second revision by the same party is barred by virtue of Section 397(3) CrPC.Dhalpat Singh Sankhala VS State of Rajasthan - 2013 Supreme(Raj) 1744 - 2013 0 Supreme(Raj) 1744

Practical Implications for Litigants and Lawyers

For Accused/Petitioners: Exhaust revision at Sessions level first. Avoid second bites unless exceptional circumstances justify Section 482.
Alternatives: Appeal if available, or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 (limited).
Risks: Dismissal with costs for frivolous second petitions.

Recommendations:- Advise clients against filing under guise of inherent powers without compelling reasons. Shashi Mahajan VS Sudha Sharma, W/o Suraj Parkash Sharma - J&K- Explore other remedies post-Sessions dismissal.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

Generally, the revision by the same parties under Section 397 CrPC is barred once the first is disposed of. This principle, upheld by the Supreme Court and High Courts, ensures procedural finality. While Section 482 offers a narrow window in exceptional cases, it cannot routinely substitute revisions. Vijay Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Ram Pravesh Singh vs Union of India through CBI - Jharkhand

Key Takeaways:1. Section 397(3) strictly bars second revisions by same parties.2. Section 482 is sparingly used, not as a workaround.3. Judicial efficiency trumps repeated challenges.4. Always check precedents like Kailash Verma and Krishnan v. Krishnaveni.

Disclaimer: This is general information based on case law. Legal outcomes depend on facts; seek professional advice.

References:- Shashi Mahajan VS Sudha Sharma, W/o Suraj Parkash Sharma - J&K Muhstaq Ahmad Mir VS Khatijja - J&K Kulwant Singh VS State Of Rajasthan - Rajasthan- Ravi Vansha Narayan Mathur And Another VS State And Another - Delhi Visual Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. vs Executive Engineer (E) Plewd, CPWD - Delhi (2022)- Bibhuti Bhushan Prasad Amar, Son of Late Vishwanath Prasad Amar vs Union of India through CBI - 2025 Supreme(Jhk) 444 - 2025 0 Supreme(Jhk) 444 Sukhjinder Singh VS Buta Singh - 2019 Supreme(P&H) 1599 - 2019 0 Supreme(P&H) 1599 Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited VS State of Rajasthan Through PP - 2019 Supreme(Raj) 2774 - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 2774- Vinay Thakur VS State of Bihar - Patna Vineet Sood vs Poonam Sood - Himachal Pradesh Vijay Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Ram Pravesh Singh vs Union of India through CBI - Jharkhand

#CrPC397, #SecondRevisionBarred, #CriminalLawIndia

Bibhuti Bhushan Prasad Amar, Son of Late Vishwanath Prasad Amar vs Union of India through CBI - 2025 Supreme(Jhk) 444

Further, in view of the provisions u/s 397(3) CrPC, a second revision against the same order with the same prayer is not maintainable. ... If the revision preferred against the order of the Magistrate is dismissed by the Sessions Judge, second revision before the High Court is not maintainable u/s 397, 399, 401 CrPC. 39. ... Before adverting to the submission made by t....

Akanksha Arora VS Tanay Maben - 2025 1 Supreme 595

The judicious approach would have been to convert the petition under Section 482 CrPC into a revision under Section 397 CrPC and to have decided the same as per law. 11. ... with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. ... Availability of alternative remedy of criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC, by itself, cannot be a good gro....

Manjunath Urf Manju S/O. Jambanna Agastavar VS State Of Karnataka Rep. By Karwar Town Police Station, Through State Pubic Prosecutor - 2024 Supreme(Kar) 560

It is relevant to extract the provisions of section 397(3) of Cr.P.C. for the sake of better understanding, which reads as under: 397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision. ... Either way even if the petitioners are seeking to invoke the revisional powers of this Court, the petitioners are barred under section 397(3) of Cr.P.C. as the same cannot be invoke....

Dilshad Hussain vs Pushpa Devi - 2025 Supreme(Del) 316

under Section 311 CrPC was dismissed; and order dated 20.03.2025 of learned Court of Sessions in proceedings under Section 397 CrPC, refusing to interfere. ... While the text of sub-section (1) of Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. appears to confer very wide powers on the court in the exercise of its revision jurisdiction, this power is equally severely curtailed by sub-section (2) thereof. .......

Bablu @ Lal Panda VS State of M. P. - 2023 Supreme(MP) 292

Against this, petitioner has preferred present revision. 4. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. Scope of Revision u/s 397 & 401 of CrPC:- 5. ... Section 401 Cr.P.C. is a provision enabling the High Court to exercise all powers of Appellate Court, if necessary, in aid of power of superintendence or supervision as a part of power of revision ....

K. Ravi VS State Of Tamil Nadu - 2024 6 Supreme 474

The said Application also having been dismissed by the Sessions Court, the order was challenged before the High Court by filing Revision Application under Section 397 Cr.P.C. ... No.1268 of 2016 filed by the Respondent No. 2 (originally Accused No. 2) under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., whereby the High Court while allowing the said Revision Application set aside the order dated 18.10.....

Smritee Ojha @ Smriti Ojha @ Smritee @ Smrite VS State of Jharkhand - 2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1219

The Criminal Procedure Code is undoubtedly a complete code in itself. As has already been discussed by us, the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 397(2) CrPC is to be exercised only in respect of final orders and intermediate orders. ... and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has discussed the power of the revisional court under Section 397, 398, 399 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. and ....

Sukhjinder Singh VS Buta Singh - 2019 Supreme(P&H) 1599

However, a person cannot be permitted to do indirectly what he cannot do directly. Even otherwise, the petitioner has already availed his remedy of revision against the order passed by the trial Court. Since in the present case also, the petitioner has tried to reck up the issue of ‘legality’ or ‘propriety’ of the orders passed by the Courts, therefore, the present petition is nothing but a second revision; in the garb of petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The second revision b....

Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited VS State of Rajasthan Through PP - 2019 Supreme(Raj) 2774

6. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent has opposed the Miscellaneous Petition. It is contended that second Revision by the same party is barred under Sub-Section (3) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C.

Baldev Singh VS Jagroop Singh - 2019 Supreme(P&H) 655

However, the second revision is barred by Section 397 Cr.P.C. The present petition is in the nature of the second revision, though filed by availing a different provision of law. State of Haryana and another; decided on 02.08.2018. This Court has already dealt with the proposition regarding the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, after having availed the remedy of revision before the Courts below in a petition i.e.CRM-M-30350-2018 titled as Sudesh and ot....

Aditya Prasad Dube VS State - 2017 Supreme(Del) 4876

4. Second revision is barred under section 397(2) Cr.P.C.. Accordingly, petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be entertained only in exceptional and rare cases only if High Court is satisfied that continuation of trial would result in gross abuse of process of law thereby resulting in miscarriage of justice. Petition cannot be entertained in a routine manner as a second revision petition.

Dhalpat Singh Sankhala VS State of Rajasthan - 2013 Supreme(Raj) 1744

A second revision by the same party is barred by virtue of Section 397(3) CrPC. petition as well as the stay petition being bereft of any force are hereby dismissed.