Inherent criminal jurisdiction cannot bypass the bar on second revision against a charge-framing order absent special circumstances.

A petition under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to bypass the statutory bar on a second revision after a party has already challenged an order framing charge in revisional jurisdiction. The Delhi HC reiterated that inherent powers are not meant to circumvent Section 397(3) CrPC unless special circumstances justify interference. As no such exceptional grounds were shown, the court declined to entertain the Section 482 petition and the challenge to the charge-framing order failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be entertained to challenge the order framing charge after the petitioners had already pursued revision, and whether any special circumstances existed to justify interference.

Analysis: The petitioners had already invoked revisional jurisdiction against the order framing charge. The Court noted that a further challenge under Section 482 could not be used as a substitute for a second revisional scrutiny barred by Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Reliance was placed on earlier decisions holding that inherent powers are not to be exercised to circumvent the statutory bar against second revision, unless a special case is made out. No special circumstances were shown in the present case to warrant interference with the revisional court's view.

Conclusion: The petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not entertained, and the challenge to the order framing charge failed.

---