The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently addressed the issue of whether a second criminal revision petition by the same individual is permissible under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Justice Sumeet Goel clarified that while the CrPC (Sections 397(3) and 399(2)) prohibits a second revision petition, the High Court retains authority to entertain such petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC, which grants inherent jurisdiction.
In a recent case, the petitioner had filed a complaint against several individuals under various sections of the IPC, alleging offenses including assault and outraging the modesty of a woman. The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint, and a subsequent revision petition before the Sessions Court met the same fate. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash these orders.
Justice Goel highlighted that while statutory provisions bar a second revision petition, the High Court can still consider such petitions if compelling circumstances exist, such as grave miscarriage of justice, abuse of court processes, non-compliance with statutory procedures, or other serious concerns affecting justice.
The court cited previous judgments emphasizing the plenary powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to ensure justice and prevent abuse of legal processes. It noted that the High Court should exercise these powers judiciously, considering the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
After careful consideration of the case before it, the High Court concluded that there were no glaring defects or manifest errors in the lower courts’ orders that would warrant interference under Section 482 CrPC. The court also acknowledged the sensitivity involved in summoning individuals in criminal cases, stressing that such actions should be taken cautiously and based on prima facie evidence.
Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the petitioner’s plea, indicating that the complaint may have been filed as a response to an earlier FIR against the petitioner, thereby highlighting the complex nature of the case and the need for careful judicial consideration.
This decision underscores the High Court’s dual responsibility: to uphold statutory limitations on multiple revisions while ensuring that its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC serve the interests of justice effectively.
Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Tejasvi Sheokand, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Ms. Mahima Yashpal, DAG, Haryana.
Case Title: XXX v. XXX
