High court of Rajasthan Warna against flood of Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC
Date:- 21-10-2025
Case Title: Heera Lal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Bench: Hon’ble Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
Court: Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Date of Judgment: 10 December 2024
For Petitioners: Mr. Rinesh Kumar Gupta with Mr. Saurabh Pratap Singh
For Respondents: Mr. Shree Ram Dhankar, Public Prosecutor
Background of the Case
The petitioners approached the Rajasthan High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking to quash an FIR and the order framing charges against them under Sections 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The FIR dated 2010 arose from an incident that allegedly occurred in 1989, and the petitioners argued that it was a false criminal case filed to give a criminal colour to a pending civil dispute. Although a negative final report had been filed by the investigating agency, a protest petition led to cognizance and framing of charges by the Magistrate’s Court.
Aggrieved, the petitioners directly invoked the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, contending that the order framing charges was interlocutory in nature and therefore not revisable under Section 397 CrPC.
Legal Issues Before the Court
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand identified two key legal questions:
1. Whether the order of framing charges is interlocutory or final in nature?
2. Whether the revision petition should be filed before the High Court or the Sessions Court?
Court’s Analysis
1. Nature of the Order Framing Charges
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. CBI (2018) 16 SCC 299, which held that an order framing charges is neither purely interlocutory nor final, and may be challenged under Section 397 CrPC, Section 482 CrPC, or Article 227 of the Constitution but only in exceptional circumstances to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Further reliance was placed on Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551 and Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 15 SCC 720, reiterating that such orders are revisable but courts must exercise this power sparingly and cautiously.
2. Forum for Filing Revision — High Court or Sessions Court
The Court next examined Section 397 CrPC, which vests concurrent revisional powers in both the High Court and the Sessions Court.
Referring to the landmark Supreme Court case Pranab Kumar Mitra v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1959 SC 144), the High Court reiterated that revisional powers are discretionary and do not confer a right upon litigants to directly approach the High Court. Such powers are meant to ensure that subordinate courts do not exceed their jurisdiction.
The Court emphasized that while both forums have jurisdiction, as a matter of propriety, a party should first approach the Sessions Court unless there are exceptional or special circumstances.
Key Observations by the Court
“
This Court is already flooded with lot of Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence one cannot be allowed to by-pass the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Court only because this Court can entertain a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or both the High Court and the Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C
The Court further observed that revisional jurisdiction is not to be exercised as a matter of course, and litigants cannot misuse the High Court’s inherent powers merely to avoid the Sessions Court.
This article cover the legal point of revision against the order of Framing of Charges under section 397 of CrPC . further you can read here important judgements and legal principles laid down by Hon’ble supreme court of India, this article is posted by Advocate Shivaji Rathore (J&K high court jammu) for more important legal topics stay connected with us, on tacit legal we post on YouTube channel also named as Tacit Legal helpful for Law students newely enrolled Advocate in India and other states, Follow us on Instagram also, Read our articles on important Questions of Law. #tacitlegal visit my website Tacit Legal dot in search on google, this website is made from Hostinger and wordpress follow our latest updates for legal news follow us on YouTube also for young lawyers law students helpful for Advocates, this blog is written by Advocate Shivaji Rathore practicing in Jammu and Kashmir high court and district court at Jammu. The website Tacit Legal is available on Google created with Hostinger and wordpress keep in touch and read our daily articles and reporting for law students and advocates as we provide you important legal information on Tacit Legal.in
Author: Advocate Shivaji Rathore
Founder – Tacit Legal | tacitlegal.in
- Husband Cannot Evade Maintenance Liability Merely Because Wife Is Educated or Has Parental Support: Supreme Court
Shivaji Rathore 04-Feb-2026 In a significant reaffirmation of women’s right to live with dignity after divorce, the Supreme - Default in Filing Written Statement Does Not Mean Automatic Decree: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC01-Feb-2026 In a significant ruling reaffirming foundational principles of civil justice, the Supreme Court of India has held
- Allahabad High Court Mandates Prosecution for False FIRs: Police Officers Face Liability for Non-Compliance
Shivaji Rathore 30-01-2026 In a far-reaching and precedent-setting judgment, the Allahabad High Court has issued a strict mandamus - Supreme Court Keeps UGC Promotion of Equity Regulations, 2026 in Abeyance; Revives 2012 FrameworkShivaji Rathore 29-01-2026 The Supreme Court of India on Thursday ordered that the University Grants Commission (Promotion of
- Supreme Court Clarifies Magistrate’s Powers Under Section 175(4) BNSS in Cases Against Public ServantsShivaji Rathore, 28-01-2026 The Supreme Court laid down an authoritative interpretation of Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
