Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be entertained to challenge an order after a revision has already been dismissed, and whether the impugned orders framing charge required interference.
Analysis: Section 482 preserves the High Court's inherent jurisdiction, but that power is not a substitute for a second revision barred by Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such power is to be exercised sparingly only in rare cases to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice, and not as a routine avenue to reappraise evidence or reopen concurrent findings at the charge stage. Where the trial court and revisional court have found a prima facie case, the High Court ordinarily will not interfere unless the facts disclose a grave miscarriage of justice.
Conclusion: The petition under Section 482 was not maintainable as a surrogate second revision on the facts of the case, and no ground for interference with the orders framing charge was made out. The petition failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot ordinarily be used to bypass the statutory bar against a second revision under Section 397(3), and interference is warranted only in rare cases to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.