2023 (6) TMI 1364 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of second revision - framing of charge - whether the criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC under the guise of second revision is maintainable? - HELD THAT - When revision against the order of Magistrate dismissing the complaint had been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge application to the High Court under Section 482 CrPC against the order of dismissal would not lie as it would amount to circumventing this provision which prohibits second revision. The inherent powers cannot be invoked in a manner that the effect would be just entertaining a second revision which has been expressly barred except in extraordinary cases. The bar as contained in Sub-Section (3) of Section 397 CrPC cannot be circumvented by resorting to Section 482 CrPC. A second revision under the grab of a quash petition under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable. This Court is of the view that there is no compelling circumstance or exceptional circumstance or it could not even be stated to be a rarest of rare case warranting invocation of Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court and it is a clear case that under the guise of second revision the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petition deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable - This Writ Petition (Criminal) stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, along with Section 482 CrPC, seeking to quash the FIR and charges framed against him by the learned JMFC, Cachar, Silchar, in connection with PRC Case No. 661/2020.

Details of the Judgment:

*Issue 1: Discharge of the petitioner by the Magistrate and subsequent framing of charges*

The petitioner was discharged by the Magistrate on the grounds of insufficient evidence to frame charges under Sections 294/431 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The respondent then filed a revision petition before the Court of Sessions, which allowed the criminal revision, leading to the reopening of the case and framing of charges against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the framing of charges in a second revision, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Cachar, Silchar.

*Issue 2: Maintainability of the second revision under Section 482 CrPC*

The petitioner argued that the Magistrate rightly discharged him, while the Additional Sessions Judge wrongly directed the Magistrate to frame charges. The petitioner relied on several case laws to support his submissions. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel contended that the framing of charges is an interlocutory order, making a revision not maintainable, and second revision is not permissible under the law.

*Issue 3: Interpretation of Sections 397 and 482 of the CrPC*

The Court examined the provisions of Sections 397 and 482 of the CrPC. Section 397(3) bars second revision, and Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court. The Court emphasized that the inherent powers cannot be invoked to entertain a second revision, which is expressly prohibited. Citing various Supreme Court decisions, the Court reiterated that Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to circumvent the bar on second revisions.

*Conclusion:*

The Court held that the petitioner's invocation of Section 482 CrPC for a second revision was not maintainable. The Court emphasized that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting the use of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. Therefore, the Writ Petition (Criminal) was dismissed as not maintainable, and the case was disposed of accordingly.