KRISHNAN AND ANR. versus KRISHNA VENI AND ANR.

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 511 · Decided: 24-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

. ) 
KRISHNAN AND ANR. 
v . 
KRISHNA VENI AND ANR. 
JANUARY 24, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD Al'I'D 
G.B. PAITANAIK, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 397(3), 401, 482 and 
483-Second revision before High Court-Held: Is barred after the dismissal 
A 
B 
of the first one by the Court of Sessions-But in exercise of the inherent power C 
under section 482, Suo motu power under Section 401 and power of con-
tinuous superintendence under Section 483, the High · Cowt can exercise 
revisional power, interfere with any order passed by the infetior courts, to 
preve11t miscarriage of jZL<;lice-However such wide power must be exercised 
sparingly to avoid needless multiplicity of procedure and unnecessary delay D 
in trial-Prohibition under Section 397(3) on revisional power of High 
Court-Not applicable when the State seeks revision under Section 401. 
Words and phrases: Expression '~ny Person" Meaning of in the context 
of S.397(3) Cr.P.C.-lncludes juridical persons-But does not include State. 
The first respondent lodged a· complaint with the Police alleging that 
the first appellant fraudulently got her signature on an agreement to seU 
her land and forced her to execute the sale deed in his favour. After 
investigation, the police filed chargesheet under Sections 420 and 406 of 
E 
the Indian Penal Code. The Judicial-Magistrate 1st Class issued summons 
against the appellants after taking cognizance of the offence. The appel· F 
lants filed application to discharge them, which was allowed by the 
Magistrate . TI1e respondents filed revision application against the order 
of the Magistrate before the Court of Sessions, which was dismissed. The 
respondento; filed a second revision before the High Court and the High 
Court set aside the order of the· Magistrate and directed him to consider G 
the fact~ on merits at the trial. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed the 
present appeal on the ground that the High Court has uo jurisdiction to 
entertain the second revision due to prohibition by sub-section (3} of 
Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 
Dismissing the apJ>eal, this Court 
511 
H 
512 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997}1 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD : 1.1. Though second revision before the High Court under 
sob section (1) of Section 397 is prohibited by sub section (3) thereof, 
inherent power of the High Court is still available under Section 482 of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure and as it is paramount power of con-
tinuous superintendence of the High Court under Section 483, the High 
B Court is justified in interferring with the order leading to miscarriage of 
justice and in setting aside the order of the Courts below. [521-G-H] 
1.2. Ordinarily, when revision has been barred by section 397(3) of 
the . Code, a person, accused/complainant can not be allowed to take 
recourse to the revision to the High Court under Section 397(1) or under 
C inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code since it 
may amount to circumvention of the provisions of Sections 397(3) or 
397(2) of the code. The High Court has suo moru power under Section 401 
and ~ontinuous supervisory jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Code. 
So, when the High Court, on examination of the record finds that there is 
grave miscarriage of ~ustice or abuse of process of the courts or the 
D required sta~utory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure 
of justice or sentence imposed by the Magistrate requires correction, it is 
but the duty of the High Court to have it corrected at the inception, lest 
grave miscarriage of justice would ensue. It is, therefore, to meet the ends 
of justice or to prevent abuse of the process that the High Court is 
E .Preserved with inherent power and in an appropriate case even revisional 
power under Section 397 (1) read with Section 401 of the Code. It may be 
exercised sparingly so ·as to avoid needless multiplicity of procedure, 
unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of proceedings. [519-B-E] 
F 
Madhu Limaye v. 17ze Stale of Maltarashtra, [1977] 4 SCC 551, and 
V.C. Shukla v. State through CBJ, [1980] 2 SCR 380, relied on. 
Dharam Pal v. Ramsltri, [1993] 1 SCC 435, referred to. 
Rajan Kumar v. State of Kamacaka, [199()] Suppl. SCC 132; Simrikltia 
G v. Dolley Mukherjee, [1990] 2 SCC 437 and Dipti@ Arti Rai v.Ak.hil Rai & 
Ors., [1995] 5 SCC 751, distinguished. 
). 
2. Apart from the express power under Section 397(1), the High 
J--
Court has been invested with su

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.