The legal landscape in the Indian judicial system pertaining to the interplay of Sections 397, 482, and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) is intricate and continuously evolving. These statutory provisions serve as linchpins in the pursuit of justice and in the rectification of legal grievances. The interpretation of these sections has undergone notable transformations in jurisprudential thought throughout the years.

This article aims to address the central question: In cases where a litigant receives an order, typically a summons to appear in court, issued by a lower court, which legal recourse should they pursue? The key issue is whether the litigant must first exhaust the option of seeking revision or do they have the option to pursue the quashing of the aforementioned order directly.

This article aims to provide the solution to the conundrum of what must be the preferred judicial remedy in cases where there is confusion between approaching the High Court or challenging an order of a subordinate court. It also scrutinises whether there exists a favoured judicial recourse among these legal provisions.

Section 397: A closer look

Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C. confers authority upon the High Court or any Sessions Judge to meticulously scrutinise and evaluate the correctness, legality, and propriety of verdicts, penalties, or directives pronounced by lower Criminal Courts. This provision not only grants them the jurisdiction to conduct such a review but also empowers them to suspend the enforcement of sentences or orders and, when deemed appropriate, to decree the release of the accused on bail or personal bond throughout the pendency of this review process. In essence, Section 397(1) serves as a crucial instrument for rectifying potential errors or injustices in criminal proceedings, thereby safeguarding the principles of justice and fairness.

Conversely, Section 397(3) imposes a crucial restriction. It bars subsequent applications by the same petitioner to the other court if they have already sought recourse from either the High Court or a Sessions Judge. In other words, once an individual has initiated a revision petition under Section 397(1) before one of these authorities, they are precluded from seeking a similar remedy from the other. This provision aims to prevent litigants from forum shopping or engaging in serial litigation, which could lead to legal complexities and protracted proceedings.

In conclusion, Sections 397(1) and 397(3) collectively constitute a comprehensive legal framework that ensures the integrity and efficiency of the criminal justice system by allowing for judicial re-examination and intervention when required while also discouraging repetitive or vexatious applications, thus maintaining a balance between access to justice and the finality of legal decisions.

Prohibition against directly approaching the High Court

There is no statutory prohibition that compels litigants to initially approach the High Court under Section 397 instead of the Court of Sessions when seeking relief. The law only requires that the revision petition be filed in the court with the appropriate jurisdiction. This fundamental legal principle was reaffirmed in the case of CBI v. State of Gujarat. In this landmark case, it was firmly established that there is no prescribed order or hierarchy between approaching the High Court and the Court of Sessions. Therefore, litigants have the discretion to choose the appropriate forum for filing their revision petition based on factors such as convenience and the specific circumstances of the case. This decision ensures that the legal process remains flexible and adaptable to the diverse needs of different cases and litigants, upholding the principles of justice and due process.

The applicability of Section 482 in cases where Sections 397 to 401 of Cr.P.C. is still relevant. Section 397(2) explicitly limits the exercise of revisional powers concerning interim orders. However, Section 482 of Cr.P.C. provides the High Court with inherent powers independent of Sections 397 to 401. This principle was established in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, underscoring that Section 482 is not constrained by the limitations of Sections 397 to 401.

Circumventing Section 397-401 through Section 482:

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be used to bypass the restrictions of Sections 397 to 401. Initially, the Supreme Court’s stance in Rajan Kumar Machananda v. State of Karnataka, suggested that once the revision petition under Section 397 is rejected, Section 482 cannot be sought. However, this stance was overruled in Krishnan v. Krishnaveni, which emphasised that the inherent powers of the High Court can still be invoked if there is grave injustice or a violation of the principles of justice and equity. This allows for the remedy under Section 482 even after the delivery of a decision under Sections 397 to 401.

In the landmark case of Raj Kapoor vs State of Maharashtra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court provided pivotal insights into this intricate matter. It was elucidated that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 can be invoked even when revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 is available. Notably, the Court emphasised that nothing within the Cr.P.C. can restrain the expansive scope of Section 482. This pronouncement set a significant precedent, asserting the inherent power of the High Court to administer justice unhindered by procedural limitations.

This perspective was further fortified by a division bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra. The central question before the Court was whether an application under Section 482 could be summarily dismissed solely on the premise that an alternative remedy of revision under Section 397 was available. In a resounding statement, the Court proclaimed, “Inherent power of the High Court is not conferred by statute but has merely been saved thereunder. It is, thus, difficult to conceive that the jurisdiction of the High Court would be held to be barred only because the revisional jurisdiction could also be availed of.” This reinforced the notion that Section 482 stands as an independent and unrestricted avenue for seeking justice.

Subsequent cases also echoed these principles. In the case of of Urmila Devi v. Yudhvir Singh, the Supreme Court declared that the power under Section 482 would always be available to challenge an order issuing a process or summons. This stance was reaffirmed in Aroon Poorie v. Jayakumar Hiremath, underlining the consistent application of this legal doctrine.

The contrary view & its resolution:

It is essential to acknowledge that a contrary perspective was articulated by a division bench of the Supreme Court in Mohit @ Sonu v. State of Uttar Pradesh. In this case, it was held that the inherent power of the Court could only be exercised in the absence of an alternative remedy provided in Cr.P.C. for redressal of the grievance. The Court opined, “Inherent power of the court can ordinarily be exercised when there is no express provision in the Code under which the order impugned can be challenged.” This interpretation introduced an element of restriction on the exercise of inherent powers in the presence of alternative remedies.

The divergence in these perspectives led to a pivotal resolution in the case of Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan. The matter was referred to a larger bench of three judges, where the judgment in Mohit (supra) was overruled, and the stance in Dhariwal (supra) was upheld. The Court underscored that nothing within the Cr.P.C. could curtail the expansive nature of inherent powers under Section 482, not even the provisions of Section 397. This landmark judgment settled the controversy, providing clarity and uniformity in the application of these provisions. Its principles were subsequently affirmed and adhered to in Vijay v. State of Maharashtra.

Conclusion

The evolution of jurisprudence shows that Section 482 of Cr.P.C. retains its authority to offer remedies, even when other options like Section 397 are available. This approach aims to ensure justice by providing multiple legal avenues. Judicial precedents have clarified that the High Court can use Section 482 independently if there’s clear evidence of a serious injustice or a breach of principles of justice and equity. In essence, this legal evolution demonstrates a commitment to adaptability and equity within the legal system, emphasising justice and individual rights. This evolving jurisprudence showcases the flexibility and responsiveness of the Indian legal system.