Can't Bypass Sessions Court In Revision Against Order Framing Charges: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court was considering a Petition challenging an order by which charges were framed against the Petitioner under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC.

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that parties cannot be allowed to bypass the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Court while challenging an order framing charge and directly approach the High Court, highlighting that its already flooded.
The Court was considering a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition challenging the order by which the charges have been framed against the petitioner under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and also seeking quashing of the FIR.
The single-bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed, "This Court is already flooded with lot of Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence one cannot be allowed to by-pass the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Court only because this Court can entertain a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or both the High Court and the Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. No exceptional case has been made out by the petitioner for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to entertain a petition against the order of framing of impugned charges against him."
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Rinesh Kumar Gupta while the Respondent was represented by Public Prosecutor Shree Ram Dhankar.
Facts of the Case
The legal issues in this petition were (i) "Whether order of framing of charge is interlocutory or final in nature? & (ii) Whether against the order of framing of charge, the Revisional Court, i.e., the High Court or the Court of Sessions, should be approached?"
Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that for the alleged incident that occurred in the year 1989, a report was registered against the Petitioner in the year 2010, i.e., after a delay of more than 21 years. He further submitted that there is a civil dispute pending between the parties for which the false FIR was registered against the petitioner after a great delay, giving it a colour of a criminal case. He averred that the FIR is a result of a negative final report, as the investigating agency was also of the same view that the matter is of civil nature. He contended that subsequently, a protest petition was submitted by the complainant, cognizance was taken against the petitioner and now, charges have been framed against him for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC and therefore no interference of the Court is warranted.
He argued that the order of framing of charge is interlocutory in nature and the same is not revisable under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation.
Reasoning By Court
The Court reiterated that the orders of framing of charge or refusing discharge are neither interlocutory nor final in nature and therefore, not affected by the bar of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C.
It stated that the scope and ambit of Section 397 Cr.P.C. confers concurrent powers to the High Court as well as to the Sessions Court with regard to calling for the records and to examine the proceedings of inferior Courts as to its correctness, legality or propriety. It stated that the High Court is not bound to entertain an application in revision, or having entertained one, to order substitution in every case.
"It was further inter alia held that whether or not the High Court will exercise its revisional jurisdiction in a given case, must depend upon the facts and circumstances of that case. The revisional powers of the High Court vested in it by Section 439 Cr.P.C. do not create any right in favour of the litigant, but only conserve the power of the High Court to see that justice is done in accordance with the recognised rules of criminal jurisprudence and that subordinate criminal courts do not exceed their jurisdiction or abuse their powers vested in them by the Code," the Court observed.
It was of the view that in the instant case, there are no special circumstances which required the petitioner to bypass the forum of the Sessions Judge and rush directly to the High Court.
"The petitioner could have very well filed the revision even before the Sessions Judge. It is pertinent to mention that exercise of revisional powers is not a matter of course but it is a matter of rare and sparing use of powers. Hence, if two forums are available to the petitioner for getting redressal of the alleged wrong, then it will certainly be more appropriate for him to first approach the lower forum. It is certainly within the discretion of the higher forum, that is, this Court to consider whether it should entertain or not such revision petition which can lie before the Sessions Judge," the Court observed.
".....in the case of concurrent jurisdiction between two courts, if a revision petition is preferred before High Court, the said petition is maintainable, however, whether the petition can be entertained or not depends on discretion of the High Court, after taking into account the facts of the given case. Preferably, the revisional court would be Sessions Court, which would be duty bound to entertain the revision petition and can call for the record of any inferior court to look into the correctness, legality or propriety of the order or sentence including regularity of proceedings under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.," the Court further observed.
The Petition was accordingly dismissed with liberty to Petitioner to file the same before Sessions Court.
Cause Title: Heera Lal vs. State Of Rajasthan (2024:RJ-JP:50624)
Appearances:
Petitioner- Advocate Rinesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate Saurabh Pratap Singh
Respondent- Public Prosecutor Shree Ram Dhankar