Second Revision Under Section 482 CrPC Is Barred Unless Petitioner Establishes Gross Injustice.

The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging she advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the petitioner and a co-accused

The petitioner issued a cheque for the loan amount which was dishonored due to insufficient funds

The Trial Court directed the petitioner and co-accused to pay 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation under Section 143A of the NI Act

On revision, the Court of Sessions modified the order on 28.01.2026, holding that only the petitioner (as the sole signatory/drawer of the cheque) was liable for the interim compensation

The petitioner subsequently moved the High Court challenging this revisional order

1. Whether the present petition is maintainable in view of the bar against second revisions under Section 397(3) CrPC [now Section 438(3) BNSS]

2. Whether the petitioner can challenge the quantum of interim compensation on the grounds that he only received a portion of the loan amount despite signing the full cheque

The Court applied Section 397(3) of the CrPC [equivalent to Section 438(3) of the BNSS], which explicitly prohibits a party from filing a second revision petition

This statutory bar cannot be bypassed by invoking inherent powers unless a case of "gross injustice" is established

Regarding the liability of the drawer, the court relied on Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Supreme Court precedent in Mrs. Aparna A. Shah vs M/s Sheth Developers P. Ltd. & Anr, which establishes that only the drawer/signatory of the cheque is liable in such proceedings

The Court first addressed maintainability, noting that the petitioner had already exhausted his revisional remedy before the Court of Sessions. The Court observed that while inherent powers exist, they cannot provide a "backdoor entry" for a prohibited second revision unless the petitioner proves gross injustice

The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that he only received Rs. 50,000/- of the Rs. 5,00,000/- loan, reasoning that if the petitioner’s liability was lower, he would not have drawn a cheque for the larger amount

Since the petitioner admitted to signing the cheque and the defense admitted receipt of the total loan amount by the accused parties, the Court found no gross injustice in the Sessions Court's order directing the petitioner to pay 20% interim compensation

The Court upheld the impugned order dated 28.01.2026 and dismissed the petition. The petitioner was further directed to deposit costs of Rs. 10,000/- with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) within one week