Inherent powers cannot circumvent the bar on a second revision absent gross injustice.

The petitioner had earlier filed CRL.M.C. 5572/2022 seeking relief substantially identical to that sought in the present petition.

A coordinate Bench dismissed that petition by a reasoned judgment dated 10 November 2022.

The petitioner later sought dismissal of the complaint before the Magistrate; that application was dismissed because the summoning order had already been upheld.

The Sessions Court dismissed the petitioner’s revision.

The petitioner then brought the present petition, seeking to set aside those orders and quash the complaint proceedings, arguing that the earlier judgment’s observation about the pre-trial stage no longer applied because a complainant’s witness had since been partly examined.

Whether the petitioner could maintain a fresh petition seeking substantially the same relief already refused by a coordinate Bench, on the basis that a complainant’s witness had since been partly examined.

Whether the High Court could use its inherent powers to interfere with the Sessions Court’s revisional order despite the statutory bar on a second revision, in the absence of a demonstrated case of gross injustice.

Section 438(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 397(3) CrPC) bars a second revision.

The inherent powers of the High Court cannot ordinarily be invoked to circumvent that bar and may be exercised sparingly where necessary to prevent gross failure of justice, abuse of process, or miscarriage of justice.

In Krishnan v. Krishnaveni, (1997) 1 SCR 511, the Supreme Court recognised the High Court’s inherent and supervisory powers while cautioning against their use to defeat the statutory restriction on successive revisions.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on the earlier judgment’s observation that relief should be granted cautiously at the pre-trial stage. Treating partial examination of a witness as a basis for renewed proceedings would allow an accused to seek the same relief after each stage of a witness’s examination.

The Court also held that the present challenge concerned a Sessions Court order made in revision and could not be used as a backdoor second revision. Although Krishnan recognises a limited power to intervene, the petitioner had not shown gross injustice or another ground warranting its exceptional exercise. The Magistrate’s order had also followed the earlier decision upholding the summoning order.

It dismissed the petition and the accompanying applications, and directed the petitioner to deposit exemplary costs of ₹50,000 online with Bharat Ke Veer within one week.

A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court.