High Court or Sessions Court? Jharkhand HC Clarifies 'Proper' Path for Criminal Revisions

Ranchi, Jharkhand – In a significant ruling on criminal procedure, the Jharkhand High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, has clarified the appropriate forum for challenging orders from a Magistrate's court. The Court held that while a criminal revision petition filed directly before the High Court is legally maintainable, the principle of judicial propriety dictates that the litigant should first approach the Sessions Court, except in "rare and special circumstances."

The decision came while dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by directors of International Commerce Ltd., who had directly challenged an order by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Ramgarh, refusing to discharge them in a criminal case involving charges of cheating and forgery.

---

Background of the Case

The petitioners, Shree Kumar Lakhotia and others, sought to revise the S.D.J.M.'s order under the newly enacted Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which corresponds to Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The central legal question before the High Court was not the merit of the discharge application, but whether the petitioners were justified in bypassing the Sessions Court, which holds concurrent revisional jurisdiction.

Arguments Presented

The petitioners' counsel, Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, argued that since both the High Court and the Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction, the choice of forum lies with the litigant. He cited the Supreme Court's decision in Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Gujarat to assert that there is no statutory bar to approaching the High Court directly.

A key concern raised was that approaching the Sessions Court first would exhaust their remedy, as Section 438(3) of the BNSS [S. 397(3) Cr.P.C.] bars a second revision petition by the same party. They contended that High Courts often refuse to entertain subsequent petitions under their inherent powers [S. 528 BNSS / S. 482 Cr.P.C.], viewing them as a "second revision in disguise."

Court's Analysis: A Matter of Propriety, Not Maintainability

Justice Dwivedi, in a detailed judgment, distinguished between the 'maintainability' of a petition and the 'propriety' of entertaining it. The Court affirmed that the law does not prohibit a litigant from filing a revision petition directly in the High Court.

However, drawing on established legal principles and precedents, including the Supreme Court's judgment in Pranab Kumar Mitra v. State of West Bengal , the Court emphasized that revisional power is discretionary and must be exercised in the aid of justice.

The judgment highlighted a crucial point of judicial discipline:

> "When concurrent jurisdiction is given specially under such circumstances when both are superior Courts one to the Magistrate and another to the Sessions, then the propriety demands that elder superior Court in Hierarchy must be first approached. This is the customary common law as the first elders are always respected."

The Court endorsed the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Padmanabh Keshav Kamat v. Anup R. Kantak , stating that unless exceptional grounds are demonstrated, the aggrieved party should ordinarily approach the inferior of the two available forums first.

Remedy Under Inherent Powers Remains Intact

Addressing the petitioners' apprehension of losing a remedy, the Court clarified that a dismissal of a revision petition by the Sessions Court does not foreclose the option of approaching the High Court under its inherent powers (Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 Cr.P.C.). The Court explained that the scope of these two sections is different: * Revisional Power (S. 438 BNSS): Examines the correctness, legality, or propriety of an inferior court's order. * Inherent Power (S. 528 BNSS): A wider, sparingly used power to prevent abuse of the process of court or to secure the ends of justice.

The Court cited Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa , where the Supreme Court held that while the High Court should not act as a second revisional court, it can interfere under its inherent powers if justice so demands.

Final Verdict and Implications

Finding no "special and exceptional reasons" for the petitioners to have bypassed the Sessions Court, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition. It granted the petitioners the liberty to file a fresh petition before the learned Sessions Judge, directing that the time spent litigating in the High Court be excluded for limitation purposes.

This judgment serves as a crucial guide for litigants and legal practitioners, reinforcing the established judicial hierarchy and promoting a structured approach to litigation. It underscores that while legal avenues may be open, the path chosen must align with judicial propriety to ensure an orderly and efficient justice delivery system.