The High Court held that a second revision petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable after the Sessions Court dismissed the first revision, applying the principle from Deepti Alias Arati Rai. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
The criminal original petition was dismissed as not maintainable, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED. 25.04.2014
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM
Crl.O.P.No.8168 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012
P.A.Krishnappa ... Petitioner/Accused
Vs. A.Raghu ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, against the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore, in Cr.R.P.No.69 of 2010, dated 18.08.2011, confirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thirupathur, Vellore District, in C.M.P.No.2680 of 2010 in C.C.No.54 of 2009, dated 16.07.2010.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.V.Karthikeyan For Respondent : Mr.V.Parthiban
This petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore, in Cr.R.P.No.69 of 2010, dated 18.08.2011, confirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thirupathur, Vellore District, in C.M.P.No.2680 of 2010 in C.C.No.54 of 2009, dated 16.07.2010.
not give any fruitful result because after filing of the petition alone, the accused put his signature. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant that since the petitioner preferred a first revision before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore and it was dismissed after hearing both the parties, the second revision is not at all maintainable.
"4. ......... The High Court also should have taken care to verify the record before accepting the concession made by the learned Government Advocate. It should have also applied its mind to the aspect that second revision application, after dismissal of the first one by Sessions Court is not maintainable and that inherent power under Section 482 of the Code cannot be utilised for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code."
Sd/ Assistant Registrar (CS-V) Dated:
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
jrl To
Crl.O.P.No.8168 of 2012
KK(CO) Eu 06.05.14
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a second revision under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable after the first revision before the Sessions Court has been dismissed.
Whether the High Court should entertain a petition challenging the dismissal of a request for handwriting comparison in a cheque bounce case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Deepti Alias Arati Rai Vs. Akhil Raj and othersApplied¶14
(1995) 5 Supreme Court Cases 751 [Deepti Alias Arati Rai Vs. Akhil Raj and others]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P.A. Krishnappa
A. Raghu
G. Chockalingam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
G. Chockalingam
Parties & counsel
