Inherent criminal jurisdiction cannot bypass the bar on second revision where no prima facie offence is made out.
A petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging concurrent orders of discharge and partial framing of charge was held not maintainable because it operated as a second revision after the Sessions Court had already exercised revisional jurisdiction, which is barred by Section 397(3) CrPC. On the merits, the complaint, contemporaneous recording and other materials did not disclose ingredients of Section 354 IPC, and the later Section 164 statement could not unsettle the concurrent findings. As no illegality or perversity was shown in the impugned orders, interference was refused and the discharge order was allowed to stand.
Issues: Whether a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging concurrent orders of discharge and partial framing of charge was maintainable and whether interference was warranted.
Analysis: The complaint and the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were examined along with the recorded conversation relied upon by the complainant. The Court found that the initial complaint and the contemporaneous recording did not disclose allegations sufficient to constitute the ingredients of Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and that the belated statement under Section 164 could not dislodge the concurrent findings. The Court also held that the petition, in substance, amounted to a second revision after the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Court had already been invoked, and that such a course was barred by Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On the materials placed, no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders was shown.
Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable as a second revision in the guise of an inherent-power petition and no ground for interference with the discharge order was made out. The challenge to the refusal to frame charge under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 failed.
Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were allowed to stand, and the complainant's attempt to reopen the discharge order through Section 482 jurisdiction was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be used to circumvent the statutory bar on a second revision under Section 397(3), and interference with a discharge order is unwarranted unless the record discloses illegality or perversity or material sufficient to make out a prima facie case.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
