Dharam Kumar Saw and others v. The State of Jharkhand, 2025

The Petitioners approached the High Court directly under Section 397 CrPC, challenging an order of the Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, which rejected their plea for discharge under Section 245 CrPC in a complaint case?

The Petitioners argued that both the Sessions Court and High Court have revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397, 399, and 401 CrPC, so they could choose to approach either forum first?

They further contended that once a revision petition is filed before the Sessions Court, the High Court cannot entertain a second revision because of the bar under Section 397(3) CrPC?

The Section 397 CrPC grants revisional jurisdiction to both the Sessions Court and the High Court to review orders passed by subordinate courts.

However, the Court emphasized that revisional powers should be exercised sparingly and are not a matter of course or routine.

When two forums are available, it is more appropriate and proper for the litigant to first approach the Sessions Court, which is the first superior court in the hierarchy above the Magistrate.

The High Court is a higher forum and should intervene only in rare and special circumstances. Examples of special circumstances include:

• When the Sessions Judge has a direct or indirect interest in the matter, or

• When justice demands intervention solely by the High Court because of exceptional reasons.

The Court referred to Section 397(3) CrPC, which bars a person from making a second revision application to the other forum once a revision is filed in one.

The petitioners’ justification for directly approaching the High Court and bypassing the Sessions Court was noted, but the Court stressed that prudence and propriety demand respecting the hierarchical forum order.

For approaching the Sessions Court first is also beneficial to litigants, as they get a “double remedy”:

• First, they can challenge the Magistrate’s order in the Sessions Court’s revision jurisdiction, which thoroughly examines the legality, propriety, and correctness of the order.

   

• If aggrieved by the Sessions Court’s order, the litigant can still appeal to the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or relevant BNSS provisions to prevent miscarriage of justice or abuse of legal process.

The Section 397 CrPC provides concurrent revisional jurisdiction to both the Sessions Court and High Court.

Despite concurrent jurisdiction, litigants should generally first approach the Sessions Court for revision against Magistrate’s orders.

The High Court should intervene at the first instance only in exceptional cases where justice so requires.

Section 397(3) CrPC prevents multiple revision petitions on the same issue filed simultaneously in different forums.

Following the hierarchy respects judicial discipline and avoids duplicative or piecemeal litigation.

This judgment reinforces the principle of judicial restraint and prudence in exercising revisional powers.