Indian Judgements

Indian Judgements

Restricting Backdoor Revisions Through Inherent Powers under the BNSS

Picture of Judgments Online

Judgments Online

This criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)—corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)—challenged an order passed by the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Court had upheld a Magistrate’s order dismissing the petitioner’s application under Section 175(3) BNSS (seeking a direction for the registration of an FIR and police investigation into allegations of document theft, loan agreement fabrication, and fraudulent financial assignment). The primary issue addressed by the High Court was the maintainability of a petition under Section 528 BNSS when a statutory revision petition before the Court of Sessions had already been dismissed, given that Section 438(3) BNSS explicitly bars a second revision application. The High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioner failed to establish a case of gross injustice or grave miscarriage of justice, and that inherent powers cannot be invoked as a routine backdoor channel to circumvent statutory bars on second revisions.

  • Bar on Second Revision: Section 438(3) of the BNSS explicitly prohibits a party from making a further application to the High Court or Sessions Court if an application under that section has already been decided by the other authority, thereby barring a second revision.
  • Interplay Between Inherent Powers and Revision Bars: While the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS are wide and unaffected by statutory provisions, they cannot be utilized routinely or as a backdoor entry to bypass the legislative bar against second revisions, as doing so would render Section 438(2) and (3) completely otiose.
  • Threshold for Intervention: The High Court will only exercise its inherent jurisdiction to bypass a statutory revision bar in exceptional circumstances amounting to “gross injustice” or a “grave miscarriage of justice”.
  • Commercial and Contractual Disputes: Where allegations primarily stem from complex financial and contractual disagreements—such as disputes over corporate loan agreements, debt assignments, and corporate document execution—police investigation via an FIR is unwarranted if adequate statutory mechanisms (such as an inquiry by the Magistrate under Section 225 BNSS) are available to verify facts.

2026 DHC 6742

Exclusive Capital Limited v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (D.O.J. 17.08.2026)

2026 DHC 6742 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Supreme Court Verdict on the Precedence of Gangsters Act Trials and Protection of Speedy Justice

August 21, 2026 No Comments

This criminal appeal arises from an Allahabad High Court order that had stayed a murder trial (Session Trial No. 934 of 2023) under Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, giving absolute precedence to a newly initiated Gangsters Act trial. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s ruling, affirming that Section 12 is designed to prevent trial delays from scheduling conflicts rather than to indefinitely freeze advanced murder trials that are already near completion. Because the Supreme Court had earlier directed the trial court to proceed, the murder trial has already concluded with the conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC.

  • Core Issue: Whether Section 12 of the U.P. Gangsters Act mandates staying an advanced, nearly completed murder session trial in favor of a newly commenced trial under the Gangsters Act.
  • High Court’s Error: The Allahabad High Court incorrectly interpreted Section 12 to mean that all parallel proceedings for other heinous crimes must be kept in abeyance until the conclusion of the Gangsters Act trial.
  • Supreme Court’s Analysis & Precedent: * Referring to earlier precedents like Dharmendra Kirthal v. State of U.P. and Mobin Iftikhar Zaidi v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court emphasized that Section 12 aims to ensure speedy trials and avoid scheduling clashes, not to stall or freeze other serious criminal prosecutions like murder.
    • The provision does not intend to delay justice or put the finality of a brutal murder trial into temporary oblivion.
  • Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order, noting that the Sessions Court had already fully complied with directions to conclude the trial, resulting in the conviction of all accused under Section 302 and other provisions of the IPC.

2026 INSC 866

Keshvendra Singh v. Shankar Singh And Anr. (D.O.J. 17.08.2026)

2026 INSC 866 click here to view full text of judgment

Next Story

Service Law: Rural Reservation Eligibility for Students from Transitional Areas

August 21, 2026 No Comments

This civil appeal challenges the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), which held that students whose schools are located in “transitional areas” (governed by a Nagar Panchayat under Article 243-Q(1)(a) of the Constitution) lose their rural status and cannot claim the 75% rural area reservation under the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Selection Test Scheme (JNVST-2026). The appellants contended that the High Court’s decision ran contrary to an earlier coordinate bench ruling in Jiya Jitendra Nagrale v. State of Maharashtra and ignored valid rural certificates issued by competent authorities under the JNVST Prospectus.

  • Core Issue: Whether students studying in schools situated in “transitional areas” (Nagar Panchayats) can be treated as urban candidates and disqualified from the 75% rural category reservation under JNVST-2026.
  • High Court’s View: The Bombay High Court ruled that once an area is designated as a “transitional area”, the process of urbanization has begun, meaning it ceases to be a rural area. Under this view, any area not expressly notified as rural is treated as urban for reservation quotas.
  • Appellants’ Submissions: * The High Court’s ruling is per incuriam because it bypassed an earlier binding coordinate bench decision (Jiya Jitendra Nagrale) without referring it to a Full Bench.
    • Merely constituting a Nagar Panchayat does not automatically convert a rural area into an urban area unless a final specific notification is issued.
    • Valid Rural Area Certificates were duly issued to the appellants by competent authorities (such as Tahsildars) recognized under Clause 3.7 of the Prospectus.
    • The Unified District Information System for Education (UDISE) guidelines introduced in March 2026 could not be applied retrospectively to alter selection criteria after the selection process and examination had already concluded.

2026 INSC 865

Adarsh Dinkar Sontakke (Minor) & Ors. Etc. v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti & Ors. Etc.(D.O.J. 17.08.2026)

2026 INSC 865 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Eviction: Subsequent Vacancy Satisfies Landlord’s Bona Fide Commercial Requirement

August 21, 2026 No Comments

This revision petition, filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, challenged the orders of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) which dismissed the eviction petitions filed against tenants occupying shops in West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. The Delhi High Court held that once an alternative shop within the same property became vacant during the pendency of the proceedings and was successfully utilized by the landlord’s family for the exact commercial purpose pleaded (running an insurance office), the original bona fide requirement stood fully satisfied. The Court emphasized that under its limited revisional jurisdiction, it cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute findings of fact merely because a large volume of client work is claimed, especially when the subsequent availability renders the petitioning premise unnecessary.

  • Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction: The Court reiterated that under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, its role is supervisory and restricted to checking the decision-making process for perversity, illegality, or material irregularity, rather than acting as a regular appellate court.
  • Impact of Subsequent Events: During the pendency of the eviction proceedings, another shop (Shop No. 2) in the same building on the ground floor became vacant and was occupied by the landlord’s family to open an LIC and insurance office—the exact purpose for which eviction of the subject shops was sought.
  • Admissions by Landlord’s Witnesses: Clear admissions by the petitioner’s son, daughter-in-law, and grandson, along with photographic evidence, confirmed that Shop No. 2 of dimensions 9×14 feet was operational as their insurance office, matching the size and requirement of the tenanted spaces.
  • Volume of Work Irrelevant to Subsisting Need: While client lists from LIC and Sriram Life Insurance proved that the petitioner’s son and daughter-in-law had a substantial volume of clients, the Court held this did not automatically prove a continuing requirement for additional premises once the alternative shop was actively functioning for that purpose.
  • Abatement of Residential Need: The original petitioner (Smt. Ravi Kanta Madhok) passed away during the pendency of the litigation, extinguishing any personal residential requirement tied directly to her.
  • Dismissal of Petitions: Finding no jurisdictional error, perversity, or error apparent on the face of the record in the ARC’s orders, the High Court dismissed the revision petitions.

2026 DHC 6770

Ravi Kanta Madhok (Since Deceased) Thr. LRs. v. Bal Krishan Khanna & Anr. (D.O.J. 17.08.2026)

2026 DHC 6770 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Upholding Convictions in a Decades-Long Coma Case

August 21, 2026 No Comments

This criminal appeal challenged a trial court judgment dated August 24, 2009, which convicted the appellants (Prem Raj and Kewal Krishan) under Sections 308/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution arose from an incident on March 15, 2000, where a violent altercation broke out in Mangolpuri, Delhi, resulting in severe injuries to victims Amol, Rajesh, and Shambhu. Notably, one of the victims, Amol Jha, suffered critical head trauma that left him in a prolonged comatose/vegetative state lasting years. The appellants raised 12 distinct arguments in their appeal—ranging from discrepancies in medical and ocular evidence to hostiles and missing witnesses—seeking to overturn their conviction. The High Court of Delhi dismissed the appeal entirely, upholding both the conviction and the sentence while noting the immense harrowing experience suffered by the victim and his family.

  • Status of Injured Witness Amol Jha: The court dismissed the argument regarding the omission of Amol Jha as a prosecution witness, noting he remained comatose and in a vegetative state from the date of the incident through his discharge from Apollo Hospital on January 11, 2002.
  • Motive and Landlord-Tenant Dispute: The appellants’ challenge regarding a misconstrued landlord-tenant dispute was rejected because motive becomes insignificant in the presence of direct, trustworthy eyewitness testimony.
  • Ocular vs. Medical Evidence: The court reaffirmed that medical opinions presenting alternative possibilities (such as a brick falling from a height) cannot override credible ocular testimony from injured victims unless the medical evidence completely rules out the prosecution’s version.
  • Credibility of Injured Witnesses: The court emphasized that the testimony of an injured witness carries a built-in guarantee of presence at the scene, making it highly reliable even if minor contradictions or alcohol consumption (smell of alcohol without a drunkenness opinion) are noted.
  • Juvenile Acquittal and Independent Witnesses: The acquittal of a co-accused juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board has no binding bearing on independent adult trial proceedings, and the lack of independent public witnesses at a late-night incident is inconsequential.
  • Seizure of Weapons and Visibility: Poor street lighting did not negate the identification or recovery of weapons (stones and wooden planks), and the absence of bloodstains does not invalidate the offense given the nature of downward-impact head injuries.
  • Final Verdict: Finding no legal flaws or merits in the 12 grounds raised by the appellants, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, maintained the conviction and sentence, and ordered the appellants to surrender forthwith to serve their remaining sentence.

2026 DHC 6745

Prem Raj & Anr. v. State of Delhi (D.O.J. 17.08.2026)

2026 DHC 6745 click here to view full text of judgment

Share

The specified slider does not exist.

Recent Articles

Hi Judgments Online

Subscribed
Logins