Criminal Revision Before HC Is Maintainable, But Sessions Court Should Ordinarily Be Approached First: Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court recently held that the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge and the inherent powers of the High Court operate concurrently, and invoking one does not bar recourse to the other. However, as a matter of judicial discipline, the High Court will ordinarily refrain from exercising its inherent powers when an equally efficacious remedy before the Sessions Judge...
The Jharkhand High Court recently held that the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge and the inherent powers of the High Court operate concurrently, and invoking one does not bar recourse to the other. However, as a matter of judicial discipline, the High Court will ordinarily refrain from exercising its inherent powers when an equally efficacious remedy before the Sessions Judge is available.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a criminal revision petition filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the SDJM, Ramgarh's order refusing to discharge the petitioners in M.C.A. No. 2358 of 2024, arising from offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC.
At the outset, the High Court asked the petitioners to justify the maintainability of the revision petition directly before the High Court, since the Sessions Court also has concurrent jurisdiction to hear such matters.
The Court referred to Sections 397, 399, 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Sections 438, 440, 442 and 528 of the BNSS. It observed that, in light of these provisions and upon a reading of Section 397 of the Code, there is no prohibition on approaching the High Court directly. However, after referring to multiple judgements, the Court observed:
“12. In view of the above observations, it is clear that there is of-course no bar for filing revision directly to the High Court under Section 397 of the Code read with Section 401 of the Code, corresponding to the Section 438 read with Section 442 of the BNSS against the order of the learned Magistrate, but 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.”
In deciding the case, the Court also declared a previous judgment of the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 551 of 2025 as per incuriam, noting that the earlier decision had incorrectly held that such revision petitions before the High Court were not maintainable. The Court clarified that both the Sessions Court and the High Court have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition. However, as a matter of prudence, a litigant should ordinarily approach the lower forum first. The Court observed that both the Sessions Court and the Magistrates' Courts are subordinate to the High Court, and Magistrates' Courts are further subordinate to the Sessions Court.
The Court further rejected the contention that once the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge is invoked, a bar arises under Section 482 CrPC against approaching the High Court. It reaffirmed that the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 remain available at all stages.
Thus, when an order is passed by the Sessions Judge, the only remedy available to the aggrieved party is to move the High Court to question its correctness, legality or propriety. However, when the order is passed by a Magistrate, jurisdiction lies with both the Sessions Court and the High Court, but the proper course is to first approach the Sessions Court. Departure from this rule is permissible only in rare or special circumstances, such as where the Sessions Judge has directly or indirectly participated in the enquiry, investigation or trial, or where any action or order of the Sessions Judge would make it appropriate in the interest of justice for the High Court to intervene at the first instance.
Eventually, on the specific facts of the case, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, granting liberty to the Petitioners to approach the Sessions Judge.
Cause Title: Shree Kumar Lakhotia v. State of Jharkhand
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 843 of 2025
Appearance: Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar appeared for the Petitioners, and Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee appeared for the State.