The High Court has the power to quash the orders passed by the criminal courts under Article 227 of the Constitution, even if a revision application has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge, but only in exceptional circumstances.

N.P.SINGH, J.

1. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution, for quashing the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah, dismissing the criminal revision application filed on behalf of the petitioners. That revision application had been filed on behalf of the petitioners under S. 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), for setting aside an order passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, converting a proceeding u/S. 144 of the Code into one u/S.145 of the Code.

2. It appears that the petitioners first filed a criminal miscellaneous application u/S.482 of the Code which was listed for admission before a learned Judge of this Court. The learned Judge was of the opinion that as the petitioners had already filed a criminal revision application before the Sessions Judge, it was not open to them to invoke the inherent power of this Court u/S. 482 of the Code far quashing of the order passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate aforesaid, in view of S. 397(3) of the Code which bars second revision application before this Court. Thereafter the petitioners filed the present application for exercise of power by this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution.

3. At the stage of admission itself, the question of maintainability of this writ application was raised, in view of a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Ravi alias Ram Prasad V/s. State of Bihar 1987 Pat LJR (HC) 650: (1987 Cri LJ 1489). In the aforesaid case, it has been held that judgments and orders of the Judicial Magistrates and the Courts of Session would be totally out of the purview of a writ of certiorari and amenable only to the process of appeal, revision, or the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court u/S.482 of the Code.

4. A Bench, while hearing this application for admission, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chandrasekhar Singh V/s. Siya Ram Singh, AIR 1979 SC 1: (1979 Cri LJ 13), referred the present application to a Larger Bench to examine the correctness of the view expressed by the earlier Full Bench.

5. Article 227(1) of the Constitution says that every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. The expression Courts in normal course shall include even the courts of Magistrate and courts of session, unless it is found that by any other provision they have been excluded from the supervisory power of the High Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution.

6. A Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Shripatrao Dajisaheb Ghatge V/s. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 Bom 384 (FB) considered whether the expression "courts" in Art.227 includes criminal courts. It was said

"...............We are of the view that the High Courts power of judicial superintendence under the amended Art.227 certainly covers judgments of all courts meaning thereby all regular civil and criminal courts constituted under the hierarchy of courts subject to its appellate or revisional jurisdiction."

7. The Supreme Court has considered the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.227 of the Constitution in connection with an order passed u/S. 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898 (hereinafter referred to as the Old Code) in the aforesaid case of Chandrasekhar Singh V/s. Siya Ram Singh: (supra). S.146 of the Old Code said that the finding of the civil court given under that section on question of possession was final and could not be challenged by way of appeal, review or revision. In spite of the bar imposed, the High Court entertained a criminal revision application for exercise of power u/Ss.435 and 439 of the Old Code and set aside the findings recorded by the civil court. The person aggrieved filed a special leave application before the Supreme Court. After referring to several judgments including two Full Bench j