Revisional courts cannot reappreciate evidence absent patent error, perversity, or jurisdictional illegality.

The petitioners and Respondent No. 1 are brothers involved in a dispute over their late father’s property.

Respondent No. 1 alleged that the petitioners forged a Power of Attorney, Affidavit and Release Deed dated 20 December 2005, and relied on them in a civil suit to deprive him of his share.

On his complaint under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, an FIR was registered; after investigation, police filed a C-Summary Report.

The Magistrate accepted the report and dismissed the protest petition, finding that the alleged offences were not made out.

The Sessions Court, in revision, set that order aside and directed the Magistrate to reconsider the matter, also imposing costs of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioners.

The petitioners challenged the Sessions Court’s order under Article 227 of the Constitution and Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC.

1. Whether the Sessions Court exceeded the limits of its revisional jurisdiction by setting aside the Magistrate’s order and directing fresh consideration of the protest petition

2. Whether the Sessions Court’s finding that the handwriting expert’s opinion was inconclusive, and its imposition of costs on the petitioners, disclosed error warranting interference

Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC empower a revisional court to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of an inferior court’s order and to correct patent defects, jurisdictional or legal errors, material non-compliance, or perverse findings; the jurisdiction is limited and is not a vehicle for routine reappraisal of evidence or substitution of another possible view.

The Court relied on Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, Manendra Prasad Tiwari v. Amit Kumar Tiwari, (2022) 20 SCC 757, and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Krishna Kumar Pandey, (2021) 14 SCC 683, for these principles.

The petition also invoked Article 227 of the Constitution, under which the High Court considered the challenged revisional order.

The High Court held that the Magistrate had considered the complaint, investigation papers, C-Summary Report, protest petition, supporting material and handwriting expert’s report before concluding that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out.

The expert’s opinion stated that the questioned signatures and comparison signatures were written by the same hand; accordingly, the Sessions Court’s characterisation of the opinion as inconclusive was prima facie incorrect.

In reweighing the circumstances surrounding the documents and preferring a different view, the Sessions Court exceeded the limited scope of revision; the unexplained costs order against the petitioners, who were respondents in the revision, further indicated non-application of mind.

The family-property context and pending civil proceedings formed part of the factual background, but the decision turned on the Sessions Court’s improper exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

It allowed the petition and quashed and set aside the Sessions Court’s order dated 17 January 2019 in Criminal Revision Application No. 649 of 2017.