The Jharkhand High Court has clarified the scope of Section 397 CrPC (now Section 438 BNSS) on whether a litigant can directly approach the High Court in criminal revision petitions against orders of a Magistrate.
Section 397 provides for calling of records to exercise power of revision. It reads as below:
“The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding…”
The petitioners had challenged an order passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, which rejected their discharge plea under Section 245 CrPC. Instead of filing a revision before the Sessions Court, they approached the High Court directly, citing concurrent jurisdiction under Sections 397/401 CrPC.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, after considering key precedents including Pranab Kumar Mitra v. State of West Bengal (1959), Padmanabh Keshav Kamat v. Anup R. Kantak (1999), and CBI v. State of Gujarat (2007), held that while there is no absolute bar on filing revision directly before the High Court, however, “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”, except in rare or exceptional cases. Entertaining revisions directly in the High Court should be a matter of sparingly exercised discretion.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision petition but granted liberty to the petitioners to move the Sessions Court. Additionally, interim protection already granted was extended for one month to allow them to do so.
