High Court Shouldn’t Entertain Revision Petition When Same Can Be Entertained & Decided By Sessions Judge: Jharkhand High Court

The High Court was considering a criminal revision petition preferred under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging an order refusing to discharge the petitioners in a case registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held, “Further, the exercise of revisional powers is not a matter of course, but it is a matter of rare and sparing use and, as such, when two fora are available to the petitioners for getting redressal of the alleged wrong, then it will certainly be more appropriate for them to first approach the first forum. It is certainly within the discretion of the higher forum, i.e., this Court to consider whether it should entertain or not of such a revision petition which can lie before the Sessions Judge. In view of that, this Court is of the view that this Court should not entertain this revision petition which can be entertained and decided by the learned Sessions Judge. There is no question whatsoever arises of causing inconvenience or prejudice to the petitioners, if the learned Sessions Judge, in exercise of his revisional powers, deals with the application.”

Advocate Hemant Kumar Shikarwar represented the Petitioner, while Special Public Prosecutor Prabir Kumar Chattejree represented the Respondent.

Arguments

It was the petitioners’ case that the Sessions Judge and High Court are having the jurisdiction in light of Section 397 read with Section 399 and 401 of the Code, corresponding to Sections 438 read with Section 440 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and in view of that, it is for the litigant to choose the forum. It was further submitted that in view of such a legal proposition, the criminal revision petition had been filed directly before the High Court.

Reasoning

Referring to Section 397 of the Code and judgments of the Supreme Court in Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh and another (1979) and Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Gujarat (2007), the Bench held, “In light of the above provisions and looking into Section 397 of the Code, it transpires that there is no prohibition for approaching the High Court directly…”

The Bench also observed, “In view of the above observations, it is clear that there is of-course no bar for filing revision directly to the High Court under Section 397 of the Code read with Section 401 of the Code, corresponding to the Section 438 read with Section 442 of the BNSS against the order of the learned Magistrate, but when concurrent jurisdiction is given specially under such circumstances when both are superior Courts one to the Magistrate and another to the Sessions, then the propriety demands that elder superior Court in Hierarchy must be first approached. This is the customary common law as the first elders are always respected.”

The Bench explained that the party getting an order from the Magistrate will get double remedy, firstly he will approach the Court of Sessions in revision, which is a highest Court of criminal trial and after examining the legality, propriety and correctness of the order of sentence, the Sessions Court comes to the conclusion that the order requires no interference under Section 397 of the Code, then the party has still second remedy to approach the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Section 528 of BNSS if both the learned Courts have passed such orders which either cannot give effect to the orders in this Code or results in abuse of the process of law or otherwise does not secure the ends of justice.

“Certainly, a litigant can approach the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or Section 528 of BNSS. Thus, the scope of Section 397 and 482 of the Code are altogether different. At the same time, these two remedies cannot be availed simultaneously or one after the other in the High Court. The party filing a petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code before the High Court cannot invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code”, it added.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench refused to interfere with the impugned order, which was passed by the S.D.J.M. without first approaching 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, as no special and exceptional reasons were assigned for filing the revision petition directly in the High Court. Thus, dismissing the criminal revision petition, the Bench granted liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh revision petition before the Sessions Judge.

Cause Title: Shree Kumar Lakhotia v. State Of Jharkhand (Neutral Citation: 2025:JHHC:34965)

Click here to read/download Order