Difference Between a Criminal Revision Under Section 397 CrPC and an Inherent Powers Petition Under Section 482 CrPC

Indian criminal procedural law provides multiple remedies to an aggrieved party when it seeks to challenge orders of a subordinate court. Two of the most important remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) are:

Criminal Revision under Section 397 CrPC, and
Inherent Powers Petition under Section 482 CrPC.

Though both remedies involve approaching a High Court (or, in some cases, a Sessions Court), their nature, scope, and grounds are very different. Many litigants and even practitioners sometimes confuse these provisions.

The direct answer is: A criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC is a statutory remedy to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of orders passed by subordinate criminal courts, whereas a petition under Section 482 CrPC invokes the High Court’s inherent powers to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice when no other specific remedy is available.

Below is a detailed explanation of each provision, its scope, limitations, case law, and the practical differences between them.

1. Understanding Section 397 CrPC – Criminal Revision

Text of Section 397 (1):

“The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal court within its jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court…”

Key Features:

Who can file: Any person aggrieved by an order of a criminal court inferior to the High Court or Sessions Court.
Where: In the High Court or in the Court of Sessions (but not both simultaneously due to Section 397(3)).
Purpose: To check the legality, correctness, or propriety of orders of the lower criminal courts.
Nature: This is a statutory supervisory jurisdiction; it is neither an appeal nor an inherent power.

Limitations:

Cannot challenge interlocutory orders (Section 397(2) CrPC).
Cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal.
Limited to jurisdictional, legal, or procedural errors, not re-appreciation of evidence as in an appeal.

Practical Utility:

Challenging dismissal of complaints or discharge orders.
Challenging orders rejecting or granting applications like Section 319, Section 311, or bail cancellations.
Correcting gross errors of procedure.

2. Understanding Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers of the High Court

Text of Section 482 CrPC:

“Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

Key Features:

Who can file: Any person, including accused, complainant, or even the State, can invoke inherent powers.
Where: Only in the High Court (Sessions Court does not have Section 482 powers).
Purpose: To prevent abuse of process of court and secure ends of justice.
Nature: This is not a statutory remedy but a constitutional/common law recognition of the High Court’s inherent powers.

Scope:

Quashing of criminal proceedings or FIRs at the threshold.
Interfering in cases where there is manifest injustice or abuse of process.
Passing directions ancillary to justice (e.g., expeditious trial, transfer of cases, compounding of non-compoundable offences with consent in extraordinary cases).

Limitations:

Cannot be invoked where specific remedies (appeal or revision) exist.
Cannot be used to interfere in routine or disputed factual matters.
Cannot supplant or substitute trial procedures unless compelling circumstances exist.

3. Statutory Remedy vs. Inherent Power

The biggest difference between the two lies in their origin:

Section 397 CrPC is a statutory provision — the right to file a revision is conferred by the legislature.
Section 482 CrPC recognizes inherent powers that pre-exist in the High Court to do justice, irrespective of statutory limitations, but to be used sparingly.

This also means that a litigant normally must first exhaust the remedy under Section 397 before approaching Section 482, unless the case clearly falls outside Section 397’s scope.

4. Purpose and Scope Compared

Feature	Section 397 CrPC – Revision	Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers
Objective	Examine legality, correctness, or propriety of lower court orders.	Prevent abuse of process of court and secure the ends of justice.
Jurisdiction	Supervisory, limited to record of lower court.	Wide, but to be exercised sparingly.
Nature	Statutory remedy.	Inherent/extraordinary power.
Availability	When an order of subordinate court causes grievance but no appeal lies.	When no other remedy is available or statutory remedies are inadequate.
Examples of Use	Challenging dismissal of complaint, discharge order, illegal summoning order.	Quashing FIRs, quashing proceedings, compounding offences, extraordinary directions.

5. Interlocutory Orders and Bar Under Section 397(2)

Section 397(2) CrPC specifically bars revision against interlocutory orders. For example, interim orders relating to adjournments, evidence, or framing of charges (in most cases) cannot be challenged by revision.

However, Section 482 CrPC has been used by High Courts to intervene even against interlocutory orders in rare cases where the order causes irreparable injustice or amounts to abuse of process. This is a major difference between the two remedies.

Case Law: Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977 AIR 47 SC) – The Supreme Court held that although Section 397(2) bars revision against interlocutory orders, the High Court can still use its inherent powers under Section 482 to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice.

6. Concurrent Jurisdiction of Sessions and High Court

Under Section 397 CrPC, both the Sessions Judge and the High Court have revisional jurisdiction. However, once a person approaches one forum, they cannot approach the other (Section 397(3)).
Under Section 482 CrPC, only the High Court has inherent powers; the Sessions Judge cannot exercise inherent powers.

7. Appeal vs. Revision vs. Inherent Power

It is crucial to distinguish three different remedies:

Appeal – A statutory right to re-hear on facts and law.
Revision (Section 397) – A supervisory jurisdiction to correct jurisdictional and legal errors.
Inherent Power (Section 482) – An extraordinary power to secure ends of justice when statutory remedies are unavailable.

8. Case Law Distinguishing Section 397 and Section 482 CrPC

Several judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts explain the distinction:

Amar Nath v. State of Haryana (1977 AIR 2185 SC): Held that interlocutory orders cannot be revised under Section 397 but the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 remain unaffected.
Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977 AIR 47 SC): Clarified that Section 482 CrPC is available even when Section 397(2) bars revision, but only to prevent abuse of process.
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335): Laid down the famous seven categories where FIR can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Krishnan v. Krishnaveni (1997 4 SCC 241): Explained the interplay between Section 397 and Section 482 and emphasized that High Courts should not use Section 482 to bypass statutory remedies unless extraordinary grounds exist.

9. Illustrative Situations

When Section 397 CrPC is Used:

Challenging orders rejecting discharge applications under Section 239 or Section 245 CrPC.
Challenging orders taking cognizance or issuing process under Section 204 CrPC.
Challenging findings on jurisdictional questions in criminal complaints.

When Section 482 CrPC is Used:

Quashing FIR or criminal complaint at threshold.
Quashing proceedings where essential ingredients of offence are not disclosed.
Interfering in cases of harassment or mala fide prosecution.
Granting permission for compounding of non-compoundable offences in exceptional circumstances.

10. Procedure for Filing

Aspect	Section 397 CrPC – Revision	Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers
Filing Party	Any aggrieved person or State.	Any party to criminal proceedings or even third party if affected.
Forum	Sessions Court or High Court.	Only High Court.
Limitation Period	Normally 90 days (Article 131 of Limitation Act).	No fixed limitation, but must approach without delay.
Documents Needed	Certified copy of impugned order, grounds of revision, affidavit.	Petition under Section 482 with impugned FIR/order and detailed grounds.

11. Extent of Powers

In Revision: The High Court or Sessions Judge can call for records, examine correctness, legality, or propriety, and may direct further inquiry, but cannot convert acquittal into conviction (Section 401(3)).
Under Section 482: The High Court can pass any order necessary to secure justice, including quashing proceedings or directing trial courts.

12. Caution in Using Section 482 CrPC

The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned High Courts:

Use Section 482 sparingly and in rarest of rare cases.
Do not convert Section 482 into an appellate or revisional forum.
Do not interfere with investigation or trial unless manifest injustice is shown.

Case Law: Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque (2005 1 SCC 122) – High Courts should not ordinarily interfere at an interlocutory stage unless the complaint is patently frivolous.

13. Interplay Between Section 397 and Section 482

If a revision is maintainable under Section 397, generally one should not directly invoke Section 482.
However, if revision is barred (e.g., interlocutory orders) or remedy is inadequate, Section 482 can be used.
High Courts often treat mislabeled petitions (filed under 482 but maintainable under 397) according to substance rather than form.

14. Table Summarizing Key Differences

Parameter	Section 397 CrPC – Revision	Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers
Nature of Power	Statutory	Inherent/Extraordinary
Forum	High Court and Sessions Court	Only High Court
Purpose	Correct jurisdictional/legal errors in subordinate court orders	Prevent abuse of process/secure ends of justice
Scope	Limited; cannot reappreciate evidence; cannot revise interlocutory orders	Very wide but to be exercised sparingly
Examples	Discharge orders, cognizance orders, bail cancellation orders	Quashing FIR, quashing criminal proceedings
Limitation	90 days under Limitation Act	No strict limitation but delay may defeat relief

15. Practical Tips for Lawyers

Check Maintainability: If your grievance relates to an order of a subordinate criminal court and no appeal lies, consider Section 397 first.
Use Section 482 Cautiously: Invoke it only when no other statutory remedy exists or when the order is manifestly illegal.
Drafting Matters: State clearly in the petition why Section 482 jurisdiction is invoked (abuse of process, ends of justice).
Interim Relief: High Courts are more willing to grant interim relief under Section 482 if a strong prima facie case is shown.

16. FAQs on Difference Between Section 397 and Section 482 CrPC

Q1. Can a person file both a revision under Section 397 and a petition under Section 482 simultaneously?
No. One must choose the appropriate remedy. However, if revision is barred under Section 397(2), a Section 482 petition can be filed.

Q2. Can the Sessions Judge exercise powers under Section 482?
No. Inherent powers under Section 482 are only with the High Court. The Sessions Court has only revisional powers under Section 397.

Q3. Can Section 482 be used to challenge interlocutory orders?
Yes, but only in rare cases where there is manifest injustice or abuse of process.

Q4. Is there a time limit for filing a Section 482 petition?
No statutory limitation, but it should be filed promptly without undue delay.

Q5. Can the High Court convert a revision into a Section 482 petition?
Yes, High Courts often treat mislabeled petitions according to substance rather than form if justice so requires.

17. Conclusion

In conclusion, a criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC and a petition under Section 482 CrPC are fundamentally different remedies with distinct purposes.

Section 397 CrPC provides a statutory revisional jurisdiction to the High Court and Sessions Judge to examine the legality, correctness, or propriety of orders passed by subordinate criminal courts. Its scope is limited and does not cover interlocutory orders.
Section 482 CrPC preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice. This power is much broader but must be exercised sparingly and only when no other statutory remedy is available.

Understanding these differences is essential for lawyers and litigants to choose the correct procedural remedy and to present their case effectively in the High Court. Proper invocation of either provision ensures not only procedural efficiency but also justice and fairness in the criminal justice system.

Important: Kindly Refer New Corresponding Sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, (BNS); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, (BNSS); & Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, (BSA) for IPC; CrPC & IEA used in the article.

Disclaimer: This information is intended for general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult with a qualified lawyer for personalized advice specific to your situation.

Adcocate J.S. Rohilla (Civil & Criminal Lawyer in Indore)

Contact: 88271 22304