FACTS OF THE CASE
Accused appealed a criminal revision petition to the High Court of Jharkhand in Ranchi. This petition was against an order of 25.02.2023 made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Dhanbad. The petition had been opposed by the order of the Magistrate on 24.11.2017 pursuant to Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking their discharge with regard to Complaint Case No. 1581 of 2014. State of Jharkhand and Resam Sao Devi are the opposite parties in this revision petition.
ISSUES
Maintainability of a direct revision petition to the High Court: Can a criminal revision petition brought in direct before the High Court on the ground of impugning an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate be maintained where a similar remedy can be sought before the Sessions Judge?
Admissibility of such straightforward revision: Although it may be upheld, unless the special or extraordinary circumstances, the discretionary revisional power of the High Court to receive a petition that might have been submitted to the Sessions Judge should be exercised.
Interconnection between Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code: The limits and interactions of the revisional powers in Section 397 and the natural powers in Section 482 of the Code, specifically the incapacity to revise twice and the potential of remedies in the event of a decision by the Sessions Court.
LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED
The case was associated with interpretation and application of a variety of provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and their analogues of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS):
Section 245 Cr.P.C.: Relating to discharge applications.
Section 397 Cr.P.C. (equivalent to Section 438 BNSS): Authorizes both the High Court and any Sessions Judge to be granted concurrent powers of revision to view inferior Criminal Courts records. Sub- section (3) that in the case of an application made either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge no additional application shall be entertained by the other.
Section 399 Cr.P.C. (equivalent to Section 440 BNSS): describes the powers of revision of the Sessions Judge, wherein he/she may exercise the powers of the High Court in the amendment provided by Section 401(1). Sub-section (3) states that the decision of the Sessions Judge on revision application shall be final, which no longer allows further revision by the High Court.
Section 401 Cr.P.C. (equivalent to Section 442 BNSS): Spells out the powers of revision of the High Court.
Section 482 Cr.P.C. (equivalent to Section 528 BNSS): Saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders required to bring into existence any order under the code, to prevent the misuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise to promote the ends of justice.
ARGUMENTS
Petitioners Arguments:
The petitioners argued that the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court concurrently had jurisdiction under the Code, Section 397 with Sections 399 and 401, of which a litigant had the option of his/her forum. They based their beliefs on the decision made by the Supreme Court on Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Gujarat [(2007) 6 SCC 156) to assert that the criminal revision petition could be filed directly at the High court.
In their argument, they claimed that in case they should prefer revision petition before the Sessions Court; they would not be allowed to file a second revision in the High Court under Section 397(3) of the Code (or 438(3) BNSS). They also argued that High Courts usually fail to take into consideration petitions as provided in Section 482 of the Code when a revision of the Sessions Judge has already been rejected as it is considered a second revision.
They appealed that an order of a Coordinate Bench (Cr. Revision No.551 of 2025 with Cr. A revision No.440, 2025 dated 30.07. 2025), which dismissed comparable criminal revision petitions as not maintainable with liberty to proceed to the Sessions Court, was also against the spirit of statute and as such, was neither desirable nor permissible to make an initial application to the Sessions Court.
Questions/Implicit Arguments of the Court:
The Court first interrogated the petitioners on the ground why they had avoided the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge, by applying to the Judicial Magistrate in revision of the order of the learned Sessions Judge. This inferentially implies that they are biased towards the hierarchical method although direct filing may not be expressly prohibited.
Court Analysis
A careful consideration of the revisional jurisdiction and the associated precedents was done by the High Court:
Maintainability vs. Entertainment: According to the Court, the maintainability relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court such as Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh and CBI v. No statutory ban against going direct to High Court on the order of Magistrate under Section 397 (Calibrated with Section 401) of the Code (or its equivalents under BNSS) applies in the State of Gujarat. The Court however made a difference between maintainability of a proceeding and the entertainment of the same saying that maintainability of a proceeding is one thing and entertainment is another.
Propriety and Hierarchy of Courts: The Court stated that in cases where concurrent jurisdiction is granted, propriety requires that older superior Court in Hierarchy must be approached first. It described this as traditional common law since the first elders are never undermined. As much as the Sessions and Magistrate Courts are all lesser to the High Court, the Judicial Magistrate Court is inferior to the Sessions Judge Court. This is why it is wise and decent to start with the immediate superior forum.
Special and Exceptional Circumstances: The Court pointed out that direct approach to the High Court is allowed only in exceptional and special cases. This may involve situations in which the Sessions Judge was himself or indirectly implicated or the interests of justice unambiguously required the immediate action of the High Court. There were no special and exceptional reasons to avoid going through the Sessions Court in the present case.
Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. vs. Section 397 Cr.P.C.: The Court distinguished the scope of Section 397 from Section 482, stating they are “altogether different”. It clarified that Section 482 cannot be used to exercise powers expressly barred. While Section 397(2) does not limit Section 482, inherent powers are to be used “sparingly”. It also held that invoking Section 397 does not bar Section 482, but the High Court should not act as a “Second Revisional Court under the garb of exercising inherent powers”.
Coordinate Bench Order: The Court found the earlier order by a Coordinate Bench (dismissing direct revisions) to be “per incuriam” because it failed to consider various Supreme Court judgments on the issue. However, it reaffirmed that entertaining such direct petitions remains at the “discretion of the Bench”.
JUDGEMENT
In view of the above facts, reasons, and analysis, the High Court concluded that it was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, primarily because the petitioners had not first approached the next higher court, i.e., the Court of Sessions, under Sections 397 read with 399 of the Code (corresponding to Sections 438 and 440 of the BNSS). The Court found no special and exceptional reasons assigned by the petitioners to justify filing the revision petition directly in the High Court.
CONCLUSION
Consequently, the criminal revision petition (Criminal Revision No. 417 of 2023) was dismissed. However, the High Court provided the petitioners with the following liberties and directions. The petitioners are at liberty to file a fresh revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge. The period taken during this revision petition before the High Court will not be counted for the purpose of limitation for the fresh petition before the Sessions Judge. An interim protection previously granted to the petitioners by a Coordinate Bench (dated 06.03.2025) will remain operational for one further month to allow them sufficient time to approach the learned Sessions Judge.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY Manisha Kunwar
For reading more click here: Dharam Kumar Saw and others v. The State of Jharkhand
