Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Jharkhand Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi dismissed a criminal revision filed by certain company functionaries accused of criminal breach of trust, cheating and forgery, who had challenged the Magistrate’s refusal to discharge them. The Court recently held that the revisional authority of the Sessions Judge and the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction operate side by side, and recourse to one does not, in itself, preclude approaching the other. However, it clarified that, as a matter of judicial discipline, the High Court will ordinarily decline to act in inherent jurisdiction when an equally effective revisional remedy before the Sessions Court is available. Finding no special circumstances to bypass that forum, the Court refused interference and left the petitioners at liberty to seek revision before the Sessions Judge.

The case arises from a police investigation initiated in 2017 at Rajrappa Police Station in Ramgarh district, alleging criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against certain office-bearers of a company. The petitioners, described as the managing director, chief executive officer and general manager-cum-authorised signatory of the company, were proceeded against before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh, who, by order dated 8 May 2025, declined their request for discharge from the criminal case.

Also Read: PC Act | Sections 19(3) & (4) Apply Only In Appeals After Cognizance, Not When Sanction Is Questioned At Trial : Supreme Court

Invoking Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners filed a criminal revision before the High Court challenging that order. They contended that revisional jurisdiction is concurrently vested in the Sessions Judge and the High Court under Sections 397, 399 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Sections 438, 440 and 442 of the BNSS, and that a litigant may directly choose either forum. They further argued that the statutory bar on a second revision under Section 397(3) would constrain their ability to later approach the High Court if they were first required to seek revision before the Sessions Court, and relied on several Supreme Court and High Court decisions and the text of the above provisions to support this position.

The Court observed that “there is no prohibition for approaching the High Court directly” under Section 397 of the Code, but clarified that maintainability and propriety are distinct considerations. It stated that revisional power “is a discretionary power which has to be exercised in aid of justice” and that the High Court is not bound to entertain every revision when an alternative remedy exists.

While analysing the underlying principles governing concurrent revisional jurisdiction, the Court recorded that “when two fora are available... it is a matter of propriety for the party to first approach the first forum and except in rare and special circumstances to the High Court.” It stated that such circumstances could include situations “where the Sessions Judge has directly or indirectly participated in the enquiry or investigation or trial or through his any action or order interest of justice demands that High Court alone should interfere.”

The Court examined the scope of Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS and noted that both correctness and propriety of orders fall within revisional scrutiny. It observed that the litigant benefits procedurally by first approaching the Sessions Court, as a further remedy under Section 482 (Section 528 of BNSS) remains available thereafter. The Court stated that “the scope of Section 397 and 482 of the Code are altogether different” and that these two remedies cannot be invoked sequentially in the High Court. It recorded that “the party filing a petition under Section 397… before the High Court cannot invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482.”

Addressing the petitioners’ reliance on the Supreme Court judgment, the Court noted that although there is “no bar” to filing a revision directly, propriety requires respecting the hierarchy. It further stated that “the exercise of revisional powers is not a matter of course, but it is a matter of rare and sparing use” and reiterated that bypassing the Sessions Court without exceptional justification is not permissible.

The Court also addressed a previous coordinate bench order and observed that it was “per incuriam in view of the fact that other judgments on the issue in question have not been considered.” It clarified that the discretion to entertain or reject a revision lies with the Bench and that the statutory scheme clearly contemplates either forum.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that no “special and exceptional reasons” had been demonstrated to justify direct invocation of the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction.

Also Read: No Fresh Advisory Board Approval Required For Extending Preventive Detention After State Government’s Initial Confirmatory Order: Jharkhand High Court

The Court recorded that “this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, which has been passed by the learned S.D.J.M. without first approaching to the next higher court i.e. the Court of Sessions under Sections 397 read with 399 of the Code, corresponding to Sections 438 and 440 of the BNSS, as no special and exceptional reasons have been assigned for filing the revision petition directly in this Court. Consequently, this criminal revision petition is dismissed.”

“However, the petitioners are at liberty to file fresh revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge and in that event the period taken during this revision petition will not come in the way for the purpose of limitation. The ground/plea taken by the petitioners herein, will be considered by the learned Sessions Judge.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, Advocate
For the Respondent (State): Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, Special Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Shree Kumar Lakhotia & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand
Neutral Citation: 2025: JHHC:34965
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 843 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi