Section 482 CrPC petition dismissed as impermissible second revision after Sessions Judge rejected earlier revision petition

The HC dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC filed after a Sessions Judge had already dismissed the petitioner's revision against a Magistrate's order. The court held that such petition constituted an impermissible second revision in disguise, as Section 397(3) CrPC expressly prohibits second revisions except in extraordinary circumstances. The inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to circumvent this statutory bar. Finding no compelling or exceptional circumstances warranting intervention, the HC ruled the petition not maintainable and dismissed it.

---

---

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.

---