In CRM-M No.12565 of 2016-PUNJ HC- Revisional jurisdiction u/s 397 r/w Sections 399 & 401 of CrPC,  can be exercised by Sessions Court on its own: P&H HC
Justice Pankaj Jain [27-09-2022]

Read Order: Darshan Singh v. Ranjit Kaur and Others

Monika  Rahar

Chandigarh, September 28, 2022: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has recently held that revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 r/w Section 399 and Section 401 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the Sessions Court also on its own. 

Further, the Bench of Justice Pankaj Jain held,  “Bare perusal of Section 397 Cr.P.C. provides for that where the issue relates to satisfaction of the Court to the correctness, legality or propriety of finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, the Revisional Court may call for and examine the record of any proceedings before any inferior Criminal Court situated within its or his local jurisdiction.”

It was the petitioner’s case that in order to save the marital ties of his brother with Jaswinder Kaur (accused), he (petitioner) bought a piece of land in the name of Jaswinder Kaur. Following this, the couple moved to Canada and his brother distanced himself from the petitioner and his family. The said Jaswinder Kaur allegedly threatened to dispossess the petitioner from the plot that he bought in her name. Thus, he filed a Civil Suit which was dismissed. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed.

It was further the petitioner’s allegation that Jaswinder Kaur sold the land through her sister acting as her Attorney vide a Sale Deed dated December 28, 2007. It was asserted that the Power of Attorney dated November 23, 2000, executed by Jaswinder Kaur in favour of her sister was revoked in June 2002. Thus, the said Sale Deed was a result of fraud. 

All the respondents were said to be guilty of having committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 217, and 120-B IPC. The Trial Court at the time of summoning found that an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC was made out against the accused Jaswinder Kaur and her sister, thus, the Court summoned them to face trial. 

Jaswinder Kaur’s sister challenged the aforesaid order before the Revisional Court which allowed the revision petition while dismissing the complaint. Hence, the present quashing plea was filed. 

The petitioner's counsel submitted that the Trial Court travelled beyond the scope of revision. He asserted that in fact Jaswinder Kaur never preferred any revision against the summoning order, yet merely on the revision preferred by her sister, the complaint was dismissed against Jaswinder Kaur as well. 

Per contra, the respondents’ Counsel submitted that no fault can be found in the orders of the Revisional Court. Relying upon Sections 397 and 399 Cr.P.C., it was pleaded that Sessions Court was not precluded from exercising revisional powers by himself. Referring to the order passed by the Revisional Court, Counsels submitted that the Revisional Court found that the complaint when tested on the touchstone of ingredients constituting an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC was found deficient and, thus, was right in dismissing the complaint in toto.

After hearing the parties, the Court opined that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 r/w Section 399 and Section 401 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the Sessions Court also on its own. 

Further, the Court added, “Bare perusal of Section 397 Cr.P.C. provides for that where the issue relates to satisfaction of the Court to the correctness, legality or propriety of finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, the Revisional Court may call for and examine the record of any proceedings before any inferior Criminal Court situated within its or his local jurisdiction.”

Adverting to the present case, the Court found no fault with the revisional Court dismissing the complaint qua Jaswinder Kaur also. The Bench noted that the Revisional Court was fully satisfied that it was a case where the complaint itself had no legs to stand and, thus, dismissed the same. 

Next, the Court addressed the question of whether the complaint could be sustained against Jaswinder Kaur alone. Regarding this question, the Court added that Ranjit Kaur was acting in the shoes of Jaswinder Kaur thus, once the summoning order and the complaint, were quashed qua Ranjit Kaur, it could be axiomatically said that the complaint could not survive against Jaswinder Kaur alone. 

“Thus, it is one of those rare cases wherein the Revisional Court was justified in invoking revisional powers on its own”, the Bench held. 

Consequently, the present petition was dismissed.