Shanmugam vs Ravi

Shanmugam vs RAVI

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Jan 29, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1414289

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1414289
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice a.D.Jagadish Chandira
Decided On: Jan 29, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/1757/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shanmugam

Respondent

RAVI

Excerpt

.....: mr.m.jaikumarorderthis criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash theorder dated 11.11.2025 passed by the learned principal district and sessionsjudge, chengalpattu in criminal revision petition no.19 of 2024.2. the brief facts of the case are as follows:-2.1. the petitioner is an accused facing trial for the offence under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act before the learned judicial magistrate no.1, madurantakam in cc.no.38 of 2022, on the basis of the private complaint lodged by the respondent/complainant. the petitioner herein filed a petition under section 91 of cr.p.c. in crl.mp.no.2468 of 2023, seeking to direct the respondent/complainant to produce the ledger in respect of the finance company, accounts register, debt receipt challan and license for running the finance company. however, the trial court, videorder dated 13.06.2023, dismissed the said petition.2.2. challenging the same, a revision was preferred by the petitioner/accused before the learned principal district and sessions judge, chengalpattu in criminal revision no.19 of 2024. the learned judge, finding that there is no infirmity in the dismissal order passed by the trial court, dismissed the said revision, vide order dated 11.11.2025. aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed.3. it is well settled that a revision petition ought to be preferredbefore 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. 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 hasbeen.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and Shanmugam ...Petitioner Vs. Ravi ...Respondent Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order

passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu in Criminal Revision Petition No.19 of 2024 dated 11.11.2025 in order passed by Court of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurantakam in Crl.MP.No.2468 of 2023 in CC.No38 of 2022, order dated 13.06.2023. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jaikumar

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the

order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions

Judge, Chengalpattu in Criminal Revision Petition No.19 of 2024.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

2.1. The petitioner is an accused facing trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurantakam in CC.No.38 of 2022, on the basis of the private complaint lodged by the respondent/complainant. The petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.MP.No.2468 of 2023, seeking to direct the respondent/complainant to produce the ledger in respect of the Finance Company, Accounts Register, Debt receipt Challan and license for running the finance company. However, the trial court, vide

order dated 13.06.2023, dismissed the said petition.

2.2. Challenging the same, a revision was preferred by the petitioner/accused before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu in Criminal Revision No.19 of 2024. The learned Judge, finding that there is no infirmity in the dismissal order passed by the trial court, dismissed the said revision, vide order dated 11.11.2025. 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. 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. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. skt Neutral Citation: Yes/No To

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu.

2. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurantakam.

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

skt and

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties Shanmugam vs RAVI Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice a.D.Jagadish Chandira