Saravanan v. State Rep By Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Saravanan ... Petitioner Vs.

State represented by, The Inspector of Police, H4, Korukkupet Police Station, Chennai - 600 021.

... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Sessions Court, Chennai, in Criminal Revision Petition No.49 of 2025 and directing the respondent to take further action on the complaint dated 28.04.2024 in accordance with law.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Solomon For Respondent : Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Sessions Court, Chennai, dated 07.11.2025, in Criminal Revision Petition No.49 of 2025. 1/5

2.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:- 2.1. Based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner against one Paramasivam and one Mukesh on 28.04.2024, the respondent police registered a C.S.R.No.84 of 2024. However, since there was no progress in the case, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.7299 of 2024 before the learned 15th Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. The learned Magistrate, vide order dated 25.03.2025, dismissed the petition.

2.2. Against the dismissal of the said petition, a revision was preferred by the petitioner/complainant before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, in Criminal Revision No.49 of 2025. The learned Judge, finding that the complaint copy was not furnished, dismissed the same, vide order dated 07.11.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed.

3.

It is well settled that a revision petition ought to be preferred before the Sessions Court under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. Once the revision is dismissed, a subsequent petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., before the High Court challenging the very same order would, in substance, amount to a second revision, which is specifically barred under Section 397(3) of Cr.P.C. 2/5

The inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to circumvent such a statutory bar. However, no doubt, in certain exceptional circumstances, this Court can entertain a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4.

But, in the present case, no such exceptional circumstance has been made out warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the present petition, being in the nature of a second revision, is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

5.

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 17.12.2025 ham 3/5

To 1.

The Principal Judge, Sessions Court, Chennai.

2.

The 15th Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai 3.

The Inspector of Police, H4, Korukkupet Police Station, Chennai - 600 021.

4.

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

4/5

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.

ham 17.12.2025 5/5