The court emphasized the procedural propriety requiring litigants to first approach subordinate courts before the High Court unless exceptional circumstances justify bypassing this route.

JUDGEMNT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Gaurav Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. This criminal revision petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 25.02.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Complaint Case No.1581 of 2014, in which, the learned Court has been pleased to reject the petition dated 24.11.2017 filed by the petitioners under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Code”) for discharge.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners tried to convince the Court on merit, however the Court has put question to the learned counsel for the petitioners why the petitioners have surpassed the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge by filing revision against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, he submits that the learned 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 (hereinafter to be referred to as “ BNSS ”) and in view of that, it is for the litigant to choose the forum. He further submits that in view of that, the present criminal revision petition has been filed directly before the High Court. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 156 . He refers paragraphs 3 and 5 of the said judgment, which read as under:

“3. The High Court observed that the CBI was a litigant before the Court like any other litigant and it cannot be placed in a special category or in a privileged category. According to the High Court, prima facie that appears to be the claim of the appellant. It was held that the petition was not maintainable and the orders of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could have been challenged before the Sessions Court in terms of Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.PC'). It was held that the CBI ought to have taken care to move the proper court and instead of that the CBI, bypassed the alternative remedy and moved the High Court directly. After having said so, the High Court felt that the approach of the CBI deserved to be deprecated and was deprecated. A cost of Rs. 1000/- was imposed holding that the CBI had chosen a wrong path and it was not respecting and adhering to law. The Director of CBI was directed to hold an inquiry in the matter and whoever was found responsible for filing the petition before the High Court was to reimburse the cost to be deposited by the CBI. It was further directed that the inquiry as directed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was to be completed within six months.

5. We find that the High Court was not right in its approach. This Court in CBI v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 333 has laid down the principles as to whether direction can be given to the CBI under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It was held that magisterial power cannot be stretched under the said provision beyond directing the officer incharge of a police station to conduct the investigation and no such direction can be given to the CBI. In the instant case, the first information report was already registered and in that sense Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. had no application. There is substance in the plea of l