2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 1565

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J
Dilip Kumar Ghosh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Cr.M.P. No.1861 of 2025

Inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to challenge multiple distinct judicial orders through a single composite petition. It is not a substitute for statutory revision, and petitions filed past the limitation period to circumvent due process are not maintainable.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - Inherent powers of High Court - Section 528 of the code (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) - Scope and limitation - High Court’s inherent powers cannot be utilized as a substitute for statutory revision - Multiple distinct judicial orders passed at different stages of a criminal trial, such as cognizance, rejection of discharge, and framing of charges, cannot be challenged collectively in a single, rolled-up petition. (Paras 33, 36, 64, 66)

(B) Revision - Maintainability - When a statutory remedy of revision is available, it must be availed within the prescribed limitation period - A petition filed under inherent powers to bypass the bar of limitation is an abuse of the process of law. (Paras 52, 67, 72)

(C) Procedural Law - Conversion of petition - Request to convert a non-maintainable petition arising from inherent powers into a criminal revision cannot be allowed if the statutory period of limitation for filing the revision has expired. (Paras 61, 62, 77)

Facts of the case:
A criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under the inherent powers of the High Court to challenge multiple judicial orders, including an order taking cognizance, an order rejecting a discharge application, and an order framing charges, in a pending criminal case. The petition was filed nearly a year after the discharge application was rejected. The respondent objected to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that it consolidated several distinct orders into one prayer and bypassed the statutory remedy of criminal revision, which was already time-barred.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the petition was not maintainable. It emphasized that each judicial order requires an independent challenge, and the inherent jurisdiction of the court is not a device to circumvent the rules of procedure or the limitation period. The trial had already progressed with substantial witnesses examined, making it inappropriate to interfere at this stage.

Issues: The primary issues addressed were whether a composite petition challenging multiple distinct judicial orders at different trial stages is maintainable under inherent jurisdiction and whether such a petition could be converted into a criminal revision after the legal limitation period has elapsed.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent powers are reserved for extraordinary situations to prevent the abuse of the court's process and to secure the ends of justice. They cannot replace statutory remedies or the law of limitation. Filing a consolidated petition to challenge distinct judicial milestones is a procedural irregularity that indicates an abuse of the process of law. Once the limitation period for the statutory remedy of revision has expired, the court will not grant leave to convert an inherently flawed petition into one of revision.

Result: Petition dismissed.