1. The present Criminal Revision Application arises from the Judgment and Order dated 4th March 2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 116 of 2022, whereby the Order dated 3rd October 2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kolhapur, granting interim custody of the muddemal vehicle bearing Registration No. MH-09-CM-0049 to the Applicant under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Code’), came to be set aside, and the interim custody of the said vehicle was directed to be handed over to Respondent No. 2.

2. The prosecution case originates from Crime No. 0006 of 2022 registered with Laxmipuri Police Station on 4th January 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 419, 406, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’). The First Information Report was lodged by one Mohan Baburao Mane, who alleged that he was using a Maruti Swift Dzire motorcar bearing Registration No. MH-09-CM-0049, which originally belonged to the present Applicant and was allegedly agreed to be sold to Respondent No. 2 – Rangarav Khondre, pursuant to an agreement dated 6th September 2022.

3. According to the complainant, Respondent No. 2, being his relative, had permitted him to use the said vehicle. On 3rd January 2022, when the complainant had parked the vehicle at Laxmipuri Market, one Mahesh Kadam allegedly represented himself to be an officer of a Patsanstha and prevented the complainant from taking away the vehicle. It was further alleged that the accused thereafter took possession of the vehicle on the pretext of taking it to the Patsanstha, but instead drove the vehicle to his residence. Consequently, the aforesaid crime came to be registered.

4. The vehicle was surrendered before the police on 4th January 2022 and was seized under a panchnama. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kolhapur, and the case was registered as Regular Criminal Case No. 1028 of 2022.

5. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the Applicant, claiming to be the registered owner of the vehicle, filed an application under Section 451 of the Code seeking interim custody thereof. Similar applications were also filed by Respondent No. 2, Rangarav Khonde, and the original complainant, Mohan Mane. By a common Order dated 3rd October 2022, the learned Magistrate allowed the application filed by the Applicant and rejected the claims made by the other applicants, thereby directing that the interim custody of the vehicle be handed over to the Applicant.

6. Being aggrieved by the said Order, Respondent No. 2 preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 116 of 2022 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur. By the impugned Judgment and Order dated 4th March 2023, the learned Revisional Court allowed the said Revision Application, set aside the Order passed by the learned Magistrate, and directed that the interim custody of the vehicle be handed over to Respondent No. 2 upon execution of an indemnity bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order, the Applicant has preferred the present Criminal Revision Application before this Court.

7. In the present case, the question that arises for consideration is whether the present second Revision Application is maintainable in view of the bar contained in Section 397(3) of the Code. Admittedly, the Order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. under Section 451 of the Code was challenged by Respondent No. 2 before the learned Sessions Court by filing a Revision Application under Section 397 of the Code, and the learned Revisional Court, upon allowing the said Revision Application, directed that the interim custody of the vehicle be handed over to Respondent No. 2.

8. The question, therefore, is whether, after an aggrieved person has preferred a Criminal Revision Application before the Sessions Court against an Order passed by the learned Magistrate and the same has been decided, a second Revision Application can be preferred before the High Court challenging the same Order.

9. Section 397(3) of the Code expressly bars successive revision applications. It provides that where any person has preferred an application for revision before the High Court or the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other Courts. The legislative intent underlying the said provision is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and repeated challenges to the same judicial order.

10. Consequently, once an aggrieved person has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of either the Sessions Court or the High Court and the revision has been adjudicated upon, a second Revision Application by the same person before the High Court challenging the same Order, is not maintainable in view of the express bar contained in Section 397(3) of the Code.

11. A Criminal Revision Application is maintainable against an intermediate order, but not against a purely interlocutory order, in view of the bar contained in Section 397(2) of the Code and Section 438(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’). Once an aggrieved person has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and the Revision Application has been adjudicated upon, a second Revision Application before the High Court is expressly barred under Section 397(3) of the Code and Section 438(3) of the BNSS. Consequently, this Court cannot entertain a fresh Revision Application under Section 401 of the Code or Section 442 of the BNSS challenging the same Order.

12. Hence, the Application stands dismissed.