Table of Contents
Criminal Revision before High Court under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr. P.C.
DRAFT-
Criminal Revision before High Court under Sections 397 and 401 of CrPC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ……………..
Criminal Revision No. ………………………. of …….
(Under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code)
District……………
Sri……………………… …Petitioner
Versus
Sri……………………… …Respondents
Revision against the order dated ……..20……… passed by the Special Judge (E. C. Act)
………………in Criminal Revision No. ………… of 20….. ………………….v.
……………………………… and others.
The Relief sought for by this Revision is that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the
Revision on quash the order dated …………….. passed by the Special Judge (E.C. Act)
……………….. in Criminal Revision No. ………. of 20…….. with costs throughout and to pass
such other and further orders as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
The present Revision is being filed inter alia on the following
GROUNDS
- Because while discharging the accused under Section 245 (2), Cr.P.C. it was not mandatory
for the trial Court to records evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. The view taken by the Court
below to the contrary is erroneous in law. - Because the alleged offence being non-cognizable and compoundable, the trial Court could
legally discharge the accused under Section 249, Cr.P.C. on complainants failure to attend the
court. - Because the present complaint was the second complaint and the complainant was
deliberately keeping herself absent from the Court on the dates fixed, showing the non-
seriousness of the respondent to pursue the matter.
- Because the order of the court below is otherwise erroneous on facts and in law.
Dated…………….
The powers of revision granted by sub-Section (1) are not to be used in respect to any interlocutory orders made in any appeal, enquiry, trial, or other procedure, according to Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C.3
In the case of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra4, the supreme court made a ruling on the issue of the court’s inherent powers. In this case, it was determined that the prohibition under Section 397(2) to consider the revision application regarding the interlocutory orders cannot be said to be a prohibition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code because Section 482 is independent of Sections 397-401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which grant the High Court a broad range of powers that cannot be listed in full.
It was reaffirmed in the case of Raj Kapoor v. State5 that Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code could not be considered to constitute a bar on Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that other provisions of the Cr.P.C., 1973 cannot influence the inherent powers of High Courts.
But the fundamental issue—namely, whether the courts can be contacted under Section 482 while the remedies provided by Sections 397–401 of the Criminal Procedure Code are available—has been a judicial hot potato. Recently, the issue was decided and resolved. Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra6 and Mohit alias Sonu v. State of Uttar Pradesh7 were two earlier decisions that disagreed on the matter.
It was determined that even if you had a remedy under Sections 397-401 of the Cr.P.C., you could still use Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to invoke the inherent powers of the High Court. However, the Mohit v. State of U.P. ruling was the exact opposite, holding that you would not be allowed to use Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. if a remedy is available under Sections 397-401 of the Cr.P.
In Prabhu Chawla v. state of Rajasthan8, the matter was finally decided while keeping in mind the two contradicting rulings mentioned above. The three-judge panel upheld and clarified the legislation, holding that a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. would not be barred by the availability of a remedy under the Cr.P.C.
Advocate for the Revisionist
