Revisional Order Affirming Cognizance Without Assigning Specific Reasons Is Perverse and Liable to Be Quashed

The Opposite Party No. 2 filed a complaint alleging that on July 2, 2015, the petitioners set her hut on fire using kerosene and assaulted her family members

Although the police initially submitted a closure report/final form in favor of the petitioners, the O.P. No. 2 filed a protest-cum-complaint petition.

After examining five inquiry witnesses, the learned A.C.J.M.-XII, Gopalganj, took cognizance of the offence under Section 435 of the IPC on May 3, 2017

The Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Gopalganj, dismissed the revision and affirmed the cognizance order on July 21, 2026, without detailed reasoning

1. Whether a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is maintainable against a revisional order despite the bar under Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C.

2. Whether the revisional court’s order affirming cognizance was legally sustainable if passed without assigning specific reasons

The Court applied Section 397(3) and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

while a second revision is barred, the High Court may exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 to correct serious miscarriages of justice or non-compliance with mandatory legal provisions [Kailash Verma v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation and Another (2005)]

Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex (When the reason for the law ceases, the law itself ceases)

The Court noted that although Section 397(3) generally prohibits a second revision, the inherent power of the High Court remains available to prevent an abuse of the process of law

the Additional Sessions Judge merely stated that the lower court’s order was "correct" and "legal" without performing any independent analysis of the merits or the evidence provided by inquiry witnesses

The absence of reasoning in the revisional order rendered it "perverse" and a failure of judicial duty, necessitating interference to ensure a proper adjudication

The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the order dated July 26, 2018, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Gopalganj and the matter was remanded back to the revisional court with a direction to pass a fresh order providing specific reasons