Criminal Revision Power Under Section 482 Cannot Be Exercised as a Substitute for Second Revision

The petitioner filed Complaint Case No. 1669/2015 alleging that on May 18, 2015, Opposite Party No. 2 committed rape upon her at dagger-point while her husband was away

She further alleged that when her husband and villagers apprehended the accused, Opposite Parties No. 3 and 4 assaulted them and rescued the primary accused at gunpoint

The learned CJM, Purnea, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. on June 8, 2018

The petitioner challenged this via criminal revision (Cr. Rev. No. 103/2018), which was subsequently dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Purnea, on September 15, 2018

The petitioner then moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the revisional order

1. Whether a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be entertained against a revisional order when it effectively amounts to a second revision, which is barred under Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C.

2. Whether the orders passed by the lower courts were perverse or involved a serious miscarriage of justice requiring the exercise of inherent jurisdiction

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the High Court’s inherent powers and Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C., which prohibits a second revision petition by the same person

Kailash Verma v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation and Another (2005) 2 SCC 571, which establishes that Section 482 should not be used as a substitute for a second revision unless there is a serious miscarriage of justice or non-compliance with mandatory legal provisions

Pepsi Foods Ltd. Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate Others (1998) 5 SCC 749, emphasizing that while proceedings can be quashed if no case is made out, the High Court must exercise caution before interfering with reasoned concurrent findings

The Court observed that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had dismissed the original complaint through a reasoned order under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.

This dismissal was subsequently upheld by the Sessions Judge in a revision petition that likewise provided sound legal reasoning

The High Court found that the petitioner was essentially seeking a "second revision" under the guise of a Section 482 petition, which is generally impermissible under Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C.

Following the precedent in Kailash Verma, the Court determined that because the lower court orders were not "perverse" and the petitioner failed to demonstrate a "serious miscarriage of justice" or a patent illegality, there was no justification to invoke inherent jurisdiction to override the concurrent findings of the lower courts

The Criminal Miscellaneous petition was dismissed, affirming the orders of the CJM and the Sessions Judge

The Court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the trial court