Section 482 cannot be used as a second revision where the same challenge was already rejected in revision.

An application under Section 482 CrPC was held not maintainable where the petitioner had already challenged the Magistrate's order in revision on the same grounds, because the inherent jurisdiction could not be used as a second revision in disguise. The Court also treated the Supreme Court's prior refusal to transfer the complaint as an additional bar to reopening the same grievance, and found no basis for interference. The petition therefore failed on maintainability and merits, and the complaint proceedings were permitted to continue before the trial court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be entertained after dismissal of a revision on the same grounds, and (ii) whether the challenge was barred by the prior order of the Supreme Court declining transfer of the complaint.

Issue (i): Whether an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be entertained after dismissal of a revision on the same grounds.

Analysis: The petitioner had already unsuccessfully challenged the Magistrate's order by revision before the Sessions Court on the same grounds. The Court held that the revisional remedy had been exhausted and that the inherent power under Section 482 could not be used to secure a second revision in disguise. Reliance was placed on the principle that the bar against a second revision cannot be circumvented by recourse to inherent jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The application under Section 482 was not maintainable and was barred as a second revision.

Issue (ii): Whether the challenge was barred by the prior order of the Supreme Court declining transfer of the complaint.

Analysis: The Court noted that the Supreme Court had already refused transfer of the complaint on the ground that no merit was found in the transfer petition. The Court treated that order as an additional circumstance against reopening the same grievance in the present proceeding and held that no interference was warranted.

Conclusion: The challenge was further barred by the prior Supreme Court order and did not merit interference.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed both on maintainability and on merits, and the complaint proceedings were left to continue before the trial court.

---