A Section 482 petition challenging revisional dismissal is barred as a second revision under Section 397(3) CrPC.

The petitioner, the Principal of Saraswati Vidya Mandir, initiated complaint proceedings alleging that the accused persons entered the school after a meeting, broke the locks of the office and classroom, destroyed school documents, removed furniture and other articles, and threatened to kill him if he continued operating the school.

He also alleged a subsequent attempt on his life.

The complaint was referred to the police and registered as Kahalgaon P.S. Case No. 343 of 2014 under Sections 452, 379, 506 and 120-B of the IPC.

After investigation, the police submitted a final form/closure report.

The petitioner’s protest petition was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

The criminal revision against that dismissal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, on 17 September 2018.

The petitioner thereafter invoked Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court, seeking quashing of the revisional order and the Magistrate’s dismissal order.

Whether a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the dismissal of a criminal revision can be entertained when it effectively amounts to a second criminal revision barred by Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.

Whether the orders dismissing the protest-cum-complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. and the subsequent criminal revision were so perverse or legally unsustainable as to warrant exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The Court applied Section 203 Cr.P.C., under which a Magistrate may dismiss a complaint where, after considering the complainant’s statement and the result of inquiry or investigation, there is insufficient ground for proceeding.

Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. bars a second revision by the same person before the High Court or another court after a revision has been disposed of.

Section 482 Cr.P.C. preserves the High Court’s inherent powers, but such jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be used to circumvent the statutory bar on a second revision and may be exercised against a revisional order only in exceptional cases involving perversity or manifest illegality.

The Court relied on Kailash Verma v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation, (2005) 2 SCC 571, regarding the limited exercise of inherent jurisdiction against revisional orders.

The High Court noted that the police had submitted a closure report and that the petitioner’s protest petition had thereafter been considered and dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

The petitioner challenged that dismissal through a criminal revision, which was also dismissed by the Sessions Court.

Although the petitioner contended that the Magistrate had improperly rejected the allegations merely because the dispute arose from a land dispute, the High Court found no basis to treat the impugned orders as completely perverse or legally unsustainable.

The proposed Section 482 petition sought substantially the same relief as a second revision and therefore attracted the bar under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.

The inherent jurisdiction could not be invoked merely to re-examine the merits of the allegations or bypass the statutory prohibition.

No exceptional perversity or legal infirmity warranting interference was established.

The petition was accordingly dismissed, and a copy of the judgment was directed to be transmitted to the trial court.