Jayaraman Mahavishnu vs The State Rep By
2026 Latest Caselaw 1633 Mad

Madras High Court

Jayaraman Mahavishnu vs The State Rep By on 7 April, 2026

                                                                              Crl.R.C.SR.No.6357 of 2026
                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                        Reserved on                   13.03.2026
                                       Pronounced on                  07.04.2026


                                                         CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

                                                Crl.R.C.SR.No.6357 of 2026


                   Jayaraman Mahavishnu                                             ... Petitioner

                                                           Vs.


                   State, by Inspector of Police,
                   Uthukuli Police Station,
                   Tiruppur District.
                   (Cr.No.429 of 2024 u/s.279, 338, 304-A of IPC)                  … Respondents

                   PRAYER : Criminal Revision filed under Sections 438 r/w 442 of BNSS., to
                   set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner in the judgement
                   dated 26.06.2025 made in Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2024 passed by the Court
                   of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirpuur, confirming the judgement
                   dated 21.12.2023 made in C.C.No.338 of 2019 passed by the Court of District
                   Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthukuli.



                                   For Petitioner     : Mr.P.Sathyanathan




                   1/6




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                  Crl.R.C.SR.No.6357 of 2026
                                                          ORDER

The Registry has raised objections with regard to the numbering of the

second revision and returned the same on 06.02.2026 with the following

endorsement:-

“It may be stated as to how the second revision will lie before this Hon’ble Court.”

2. The same was represented by the petitioner on 10.02.2026 with the

following endorsement:-

“All objections complied and represented.

The petitioner filed Crl.R.C.No.1490 of 2025 and the same has been dismissed as withdrawn on 28.08.2025. The Crl.R.C.No.1490 of 2025 has not decided on merit as it is only dismissed as withdrawn. Hence, this Crl.R.C. is maintainable.”

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials

available on record.

4. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that

the earlier revision was only dismissed as withdrawn and therefore, the

petitioner is entitled to file the present revision. It is his further submission that

the principle of res judicata is not strictly applicable to criminal proceedings

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

and, apart from that, the earlier order of this Court was not one rendered on

merits.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Muskan Enterprises Vs. State of Punjab, reported

in (2024) 20 SCC 85, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after elaborately

considering various aspects, held that the principle of res judicata, traceable to

Section 11 CPC, does not apply to criminal proceedings and that there is no

provision in the Cr.P.C. akin to Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court further held that merely because no leave was granted to file a

fresh appeal, the same would not debar the petitioner from preferring a second

revision. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble

Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Ramachandra Puja Panda Samant

Vs. Jambeswar Patra and another, reported in 1975 SCC OnLine Ori 100,

wherein it was held that the bar of a second revision was confined only to cases

where the earlier criminal revision had been dismissed on merits.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7. In this regard, it is also appropriate to refer to the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Poonam Chand Jain Vs. Fazru, reported in (2010)

2 SCC 631, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after referring to the judgment

in Pramatha Nath Talukdar Vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, reported in AIR 1962

SC 876, held that even a second complaint is maintainable in exceptional

circumstances. Further, in Jatinder Singh Vs. Ranjit Kaur, reported in (2001) 2

SCC 570, it was held that dismissal of the first complaint for default would not

operate as a bar for entertaining the second complaint.

8. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that, since there was no

adjudication on merits in the earlier revision, and the same was dismissed as

withdrawn, the present second revision is maintainable. Hence, the Registry is

directed to number the same, if it is otherwise in order and post the Criminal

Revision for admission.

07.04.2026 kv

Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

To:

1. The Inspector of Police, Uthukuli Police Station, Tiruppur District.

2. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirpuur.

3. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthukuli.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

kv

Pre-Delivery Order in

07.04.2026

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis