The High Court has the discretion to entertain or not to entertain a revision application which could have been filed in the Sessions Court.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL REVISION - MAINTAINABILITY - DIRECT FILING IN HIGH COURT - JURISDICTION - DISCRETION OF COURT - SECTION 397, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a former tenant of two shops, challenged an order directing him to hand over possession of the shops to the respondent, who claimed to be the co-owner. The petitioner argued that he had surrendered possession of the shops to the respondent on the condition that the respondent would let the shops to a third party, who later surrendered possession to the respondent.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the revision application was maintainable as the jurisdiction of the High Court and Sessions Judge in the matter of revision is concurrent and there is nothing in section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which prohibits filing of a revision application directly in the High Court.
Issues: 1. Whether a revision application can be filed directly in the High Court when the jurisdiction of the High Court and Sessions Judge is concurrent? 2. Whether the High Court should entertain a revision application which could have been filed in the Sessions Court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that a revision application can be filed directly in the High Court as the jurisdiction of the High Court and Sessions Judge in the matter of revision is concurrent and there is nothing in section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which prohibits filing of a revision application directly in the High Court. 2. The court held that the High Court should not entertain a revision application which could have been filed in the Sessions Court as it is a matter of discretion and the High Court should not encourage filing of revision applications directly to it if it could be challenged in revision before the Sessions Court having jurisdiction of revision over the matter.
Final Decision: The court returned the revision application to the petitioner for presentation to the Sessions Judge, Panaji, who was directed to entertain and decide the same on merits as expeditiously as possible.

JUDGMENT - J.A. PATIL, J.:---The petitioner has filed this revision application under section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court for setting aside the Order dated 15th April, 1998, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 64/97-B. The said Order was passed on an application filed by respondent No. 1 herein under section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the learned Magistrate allowed the application directing the petitioner to handover possession of the disputed premises to the respondent No. 1. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed this revision application directly to this Court.

2.The facts giving rise to the dispute between the parties may be briefly stated, as under:---

Respondent No. 1 is a co-owner of shop Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground floor of Sita Smriti Building at Santa Inez, Panaji. Previously the petitioner was in occupation of these two shops as a tenant and he used to carry on his restaurant business therein. According to respondent No. 1, the petitioner carried his business till some time prior to the Ganesh Chaturthi of the year 1994, and thereupon stopped his business. It appears that thereafter respondent No. 1 approached the petitioner and requested him to surrender possession of the two shops. There was some talk between the parties and eventually the petitioner agreed to surrender possession of the two shop premises on the condition that respondent No. 1 should let the same to one Vikas Madkaikar. Respondent No. 1 accepted this condition and accordingly the tenancy of the two shops was taken over by the said Vikas Madkaikar with effect from September, 1994. Respondent No. 1 contended that for the first few months Vikas Madkaikar did brisk business but later on the business was affected and he suffered loss. He also fell in arrears of rent and was unable to pay the same, inspite of the notice sent by respondent No. 1. In these circumstances, according to respondent No. 1, Vikas Madkaikar offered to surrender possession of the two shop premises to him and accordingly, an agreement of cancellation was executed on 27th August, 1997, and possession of the two shops was handed over to the respondent No. 1. Thus, according to respondent No. 1, he was in possession of the two shops since 27th August, 1997.

3.Respondent No. 1 alleged that thereafter the petitioner filed a false complaint against him in the Panaji Police Station alleging that he was in possession of the shop premises and that respondent No. 1 was obstructing him in the enjoyment thereof. On the basis of the said complaint, the Panaji Police registered a cognizable case under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, against respondent No. 1. It is alleged that thereafter on the night of 3rd September, 1997, the Police Officers, without any notice to respondent No. 1, went to the said shops and started breaking open the locks of the shutter. Respondent No. 1, on coming to know about this, immediately informed the Police Officers that he was in possession of the shops and that the keys of the locks were with him. It appears that respondent No. 1 went to the shops and thereafter the police opened the locks by means of the keys which respondent No. 1 produced before them. However, thereafter, the police appear to have put their own locks and handed over possession of the shops to the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 challenged this action on the part of the officers of the Panaji Police Station and filed an application under section 457 Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji on 4th September, 1997, praying for a direction to the Panaji Police to hand over possession and keys of the shops to him.

4.Initially this application was heard and decided by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Kum. Nutan Sardessai, who after hearing the Investigating Officer passed an order on 10th September,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document