The Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi, in a detailed ruling delivered on 11 September 2025, dismissed a criminal revision petition filed directly before it, holding that the petitioners should first approach the Sessions Court unless exceptional reasons are shown.
Background
The case arose from Criminal Revision No. 417 of 2023, filed by three petitioners – Dharam Kumar Saw @ Dharam Kr. Gupta (41), Sambhu Sao (65), and Mundri Devi (55). They had challenged the order of a Judicial Magistrate at Dhanbad dated 25 February 2023, which rejected their plea for discharge under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Read also:- Kerala High Court to Introduce WhatsApp Messaging in Case Management System for Advocates and Litigants
Instead of moving the Sessions Court, the petitioners directly approached the High Court. Their counsel argued that since both the Sessions Court and the High Court possess concurrent revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC (now Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, BNSS), it was within the litigant’s choice to select the forum.
Court's Observations
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi heard arguments from all sides, including the State and the complainant, Resam Sao Devi. The bench raised a pointed query - why the petitioners bypassed the Sessions Court.
The petitioners leaned on the Supreme Court’s decision in CBI v. State of Gujarat (2007), contending that direct revision before the High Court was legally permissible. They stressed that once a revision is filed before the Sessions Court and rejected, a second revision in the High Court is barred. Hence, approaching the High Court first was justified.
Read also:- Patna High Court upholds wife's right to maintenance despite husband's divorce claim
The Judge, however, drew from precedents such as Pranab Kumar Mitra v. State of West Bengal (1959) and Padmanabh Keshav Kamat v. Anup R. Kantak (1999). He noted,
"Indeed, there is no statutory bar for filing revision directly to the High Court. But propriety demands that the Sessions Court, being the immediate superior forum to the Magistrate, should ordinarily be approached first."
The Court emphasised that revisional powers are discretionary and must be exercised sparingly. Unless there are "special and exceptional circumstances" for example, where the Sessions Judge has a conflict of interest or justice demands direct intervention - litigants should not bypass the lower forum.
Read also:- Breaking: Supreme Court Declines to Stay Waqf Amendment Act, 2025 Amid Fierce Constitutional Challenge
Decision
After an extensive survey of case law and statutory provisions, the High Court declined to interfere. Justice Dwivedi observed,
"This Court should not entertain this revision petition which can be entertained and decided by the learned Sessions Judge. No prejudice will be caused to the petitioners if the Sessions Judge exercises revisional powers."
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition was dismissed. However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh revision before the Sessions Judge, clarifying that the time spent in pursuing the present petition would not count against them for limitation purposes.
Recognising that interim protection had earlier been granted to the petitioners, the Court extended it for one more month to enable them to approach the Sessions Court.
With that, the matter was disposed of, leaving the petitioners to take their battle to the lower revisional forum.
Case Title:- Dharam Kumar Saw @ Dharam Kr. Gupta & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Case No.:- Criminal Revision No. 417 of 2023
