Second Revision Petition under Inherent Powers Inadmissible Absent Perversity or Grave Failure of Justice

The Petitioner filed a complaint seeking cognizance of offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging that Respondent No. 1 obtained an OBC Caste Certificate through misrepresentation in March 2013 to secure admission at Shaheed Bhagat Singh College, Delhi.

The Trial Court dismissed the complaint on 22.04.2025 on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and standing.

On revision, the Court of Sessions set aside the Trial Court’s reasoning regarding standing and the Corruption Act but upheld the dismissal on 07.01.2026, citing an unexplained 12-year delay, lack of territorial jurisdiction (as the certificate was issued in Basti, U.P.), and vague allegations.

The Petitioner then moved the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS) and Article 227.

1. Whether the High Court should invoke its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS when a revision petition has already been dismissed by the Sessions Court.

2. Whether the Courts at Delhi have territorial jurisdiction over a case involving a certificate issued in Uttar Pradesh.

3. Whether the inordinate delay of 12 years in filing the complaint is fatal to the Petitioner’s case.

The court primarily applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), corresponding to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., regarding the inherent powers of the High Court.

The court relied on the bar against second revision petitions under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. (pari materia Section 438(3) BNSS).

The court cited Dharampal v. Ramshri and Deepti v. Akhil Rai to affirm that inherent powers cannot circumvent express statutory bars.

The court followed Krishnan v. Krishnaveni, which held that high courts should not entertain Section 482 petitions as "disguised" second revisions unless there is a grave miscarriage of justice.

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s application was essentially a second revision petition, which is expressly prohibited by law; inherent powers cannot be utilized to create an alternative revisional forum after a litigant has exhausted their statutory remedy.

On merits, the Court found the findings of the Revisional Court to be well-reasoned and not perverse.

The Court noted that since the certificate was issued in Basti, U.P., Delhi courts lacked the jurisdiction to evaluate the misrepresentation allegedly made to the issuing authority.

Additionally, the Petitioner failed to provide any "plausible explanation" for the 12-year delay between the issuance of the certificate (2013) and the filing of the complaint.

The Court also questioned the Petitioner's bona fides, noting his unexplained possession of the Respondents' private Income Tax Returns.

The High Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit or substance; the dismissal of the complaint was upheld due to inordinate delay, lack of territorial jurisdiction, and the speculative nature of the allegations.