Concurrent Jurisdiction U/S 397 CrPC: Kerala HC Says No Bar On Approaching High Court For Revision But More Appropriate To Move Sessions Court First

Justice P.G. Ajithkumar has relied upon the Full Court decision in Sivan Pillai v. Rajamohan and others (1978) to state it is prudent to invoke the jurisdiction of the lowest forum first before approaching the High Court when concurrent remedy was available under Section 397 CrPC.

The Court noted parties might be located in the Sessions Division concerned and thus it would be easier to issue notice to the accused who might be residing within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court.

“Where the accused resides in a far away Sessions Division he has to be drawn to the High Court as though the matter can be heard and decided by the Sessions Court concerned without causing such an inconvenience. Therefore, it is just and appropriate for a party to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions first, where the revision is possible by both the High Court and the Sessions Court, albeit there is no bar for the High Court to entertain the revision filed without exhaustion of the lower forum.”

The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kanjirappally dismissed the complaint preferred by the complainant under Section 203 CrPC and this was challenged in a revision petition before the High Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC. Section 397 CrPC states that both the High Court and the Sessions Court have the concurrent power to call for and examine the records of the lower court proceedings. Section 401 CrPC deals with the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.

The allegation in the complaint was that the complainant and the respondent entered into an agreement for the construction of a commercial building. It was alleged that the complainant performed his part of the contract by paying advance money, but the respondent failed to perform his part of the contract by leaving the construction work midway. The complaint was registered under Section 405 (criminal breach of trust), 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust), 418 (cheating with knowledge of causing wrongful loss) and 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the IPC.

The Court noted that Section 397 of CrPC provides concurrent jurisdiction to both the High Court as well as the Sessions Court to call for and examine the records of lower court proceedings. It stated that it was not illegal to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court when the revisional power was concurrently given to both the High Court as well as the Sessions Court. In the present case, the Court noted that notice was already issued to the respondent. It stated that sending the matter back to the Sessions Court would cause further delay and inconvenience. Noting this, the Court considered the revision petition preferred by the complainant.

The Court held that the Magistrate can dismiss a complaint only by recording its reasons and being satisfied after conducting an enquiry under Section 202 CrPC. It noted that the Magistrate has to consider the averments in the complaint and the statement of the witnesses before dismissing a complaint. The Court relied upon the Apex Court decision in Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar (2003) to state that reasons have to be recorded by the Court whilst passing an order as it enables the party to prefer an appeal or to seek judicial review.

“The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the ‘inscrutable face of the sphinx’, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. The right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him.”

The court further noted that principles of natural justice mandate the issuance of a reasoned order as it prevents miscarriage of justice. The Court found that the order passed by the Magistrate dismissing the complaint does not satisfy the statutory requirements as it does not provide with sufficient reasons for dismissing the complaint.

On the above observations, the Court dismissed the order issued by the Magistrate and directed that the Magistrate may conduct a fresh enquiry into the complaint and pass the order.

Counsel for the complainant: Advocate Suma G.

Counsel for the respondents: Advocate Ajivass V.A and Public Prosecutor Seens C.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 617

Case title: Balamuraly G v Vinod T R

Case number: Crl.Rev.Petition No.839 of 2023

Click here to download/read the Order