REVISIONAL COURTS MUST DECIDE MATTERS ON MERITS RATHER THAN RESORTING TO ROUTINE AND UNNECESSARY REMANDS

The petitioner, Kundan, filed a complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C. regarding a property called "Kundan Vatika," alleging that a security guard (Respondent No. 2) was attempting to usurp the property

On 10.08.2021, the City Magistrate ordered the attachment of the property under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C.

Respondent No. 2 subsequently sought a recall, noting that a civil suit for status quo was pending

The City Magistrate dismissed the recall application on 26.12.2024

The Revisional Court, while observing that the civil court had jurisdiction and the Magistrate's attachment order was erroneous, set aside the orders but remanded the matter back to the City Magistrate for a fresh decision

Several other connected petitions involved similar "routine remands" by Revisional Courts after they had already recorded findings on the merits

Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 397 Cr.P.C.), which defines the supervisory scope of revisional jurisdiction to correct patent errors of legality, propriety, and regularity

Doctrine of "finality of litigation" to prevent endless adjudication

Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460 regarding the limited but corrective nature of revisional power

Suvej Singh v. Ram Naresh (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2743, emphasizing that courts should curtail rather than generate fresh rounds of litigation

The High Court observed that the Revisional Court had already applied its judicial mind and recorded findings that the Magistrate’s attachment under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. was erroneous due to the pending civil suit

The Court reasoned that once a Revisional Court has the record and has heard the parties, remanding the matter "as a matter of routine" creates a "vicious circle" of repetitive litigation

Unnecessary remands burden the subordinate judiciary and lead to docket congestion

Specifically, in Kundun’s case, since a civil court had already ordered status quo in 2019, there was no legal impediment for the Revisional Court to pass a final order itself rather than burdening the City Magistrate with a fresh inquiry

The court characterized the "routine and repetitive" practice of remand as an indicator of judicial hesitancy to assume adjudicatory responsibility

The power of remand should be an "exception and not the rule," to be used only in rare circumstances where the Revisional Court is genuinely unable to adjudicate the matter on the available record

The orders in the ten connected matters were also quashed, with directions to the respective Revisional Courts to pass final fresh orders on merits without mechanical remand

The Court issued a general directive to the Registrar (Compliance) and the Judicial Training and Research Institute (JTRI) to sensitize the subordinate judiciary against the practice of unnecessary remands