Section 482 cannot circumvent Section 397(3)’s bar on second revisions absent perversity or abuse of process.

The petitioner initially lodged Hajipur SC/ST Police Station Case No. 41 of 2011 against the opposite parties under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, alleging assault and caste-based abuse.

After investigation, the police submitted a closure report, which was accepted by the jurisdictional Magistrate.

The petitioner thereafter filed a protest-cum-complaint petition, registered as Complaint Case No. 2161 of 2012. Upon inquiry, the Magistrate took cognizance only under Sections 323 and 504 IPC and did not proceed under the SC/ST Act.

The petitioner’s criminal revision seeking transmission of the case to the Special Court under the SC/ST Act was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, on 2 November 2018.

The petitioner consequently invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the revisional order.

1. Whether the High Court could entertain a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging an order passed in criminal revision, notwithstanding the bar under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.?

2. Whether the orders of the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge were perverse or legally unsustainable for declining to take cognizance under the SC/ST Act and refusing to transfer the matter to the Special Court?

The Court applied Section 482 Cr.P.C., which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice, while recognising that such power cannot ordinarily be used as a substitute for a second revision.

Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. bars a person who has invoked revisional jurisdiction from pursuing a further revision before the High Court or another court.

The Court relied on Kailash Verma v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation, (2005) 2 SCC 571, which recognises that a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may nevertheless be maintainable in exceptional cases where the impugned order is perverse or amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

The Court also considered the allegations under Section 3(1)(x)(v) of the SC/ST Act and the requirement of sufficient material before proceeding for offences under that statute.

The High Court held that although a Section 482 petition may be entertained against a revisional order in an exceptional case, the petitioner had to demonstrate perversity or abuse of process.

The Sessions Judge had examined the police investigation, the closure report, the protest-cum-complaint proceedings, and the statements of five witnesses.

The revisional court found that the dispute essentially arose from a land dispute, that the witnesses had exaggerated the allegations, and that they had not specified the abusive language allegedly used by the accused persons.

On that basis, the Magistrate’s decision to take cognizance only under Sections 323 and 504 IPC, rather than under the SC/ST Act, was found to be reasoned and legally sustainable.

Since the revisional order was not perverse, the Section 482 petition was treated as an impermissible second revision barred by Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.

It held that, although the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked against a revisional order in cases of perversity or abuse of process, no such exceptional circumstance was established here.

The revisional order dated 2 November 2018 was upheld, and the petition seeking quashing of that order and transmission of the case to the Special Court under the SC/ST Act was dismissed for lack of merit.

The Court directed that a copy of the judgment be communicated to the trial court along with the trial court record, if any.