Jharkhand High Court
Santosh Kumar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... ... on 7 October, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:30992
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 881 of 2025
Santosh Kumar, aged about 64 years, son of Ishwari Prasad, resident of Sahdeo
Nagar, Habsi Camp, Post Office-Hehal, P.S. - Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi
... Petitioner
-Versus-
Central Bureau of Investigation ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ayush Kr. Verma, Advocate
For the CBI : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Spl. P.P. for CBI
-----
05/07.10.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel
appearing for the CBI.
2. This criminal revision petition has been preferred against the order dated
14.06.2024, by which, discharge application preferred by the petitioner under
Section 239 of Cr.P.C. in connection with RC Case No.4(S)/2011 AHD-R filed vide
Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.2979/2022 has been rejected by learned
Special Magistrate, C.B.I. Ranchi.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned
Court has not considered entire aspects of the matter and rejected the discharge
petition filed by the petitioner and in view of that, this petition has been preferred.
4. On query by the Court why this petition has been straight way filed before
the High Court without moving before the learned Sessions Judge, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that concurrent jurisdiction is there
of both the Courts and in view of that, this petition has been preferred directly
before the High Court.
5. The scope and ambit of Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 are not only confined to the correctness or
legality of the order but also to its propriety. Both the Courts of Sessions and
2025:JHHC:30992
Magistrate are inferior to the High Court and Courts of Judicial Magistrate are
inferior to the Court of Sessions Judge. When an order is passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, the only remedy left with the aggrieved party is to approach the
High Court under the BNSS to question correctness, legality or propriety, but
when the same is passed by a Magistrate, though power lies to both the Sessions
and the High Court, but as a matter of prudence and propriety, it will be
appropriate to first approach the first forum and except in rare and special
circumstances to the High Court. Such special circumstances may be 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 in the order of the learned
Magistrate.
6. This aspect of the matter has been elaborately decided by this Court in
Criminal Revision No.417 of 2023, vide judgment dated 11.09.2025.
7. In view of the above and since straightway this petition has been filed
before the High Court and what are the special circumstances of filing the
present petition before the High Court, are not disclosed in this petition and in
that view of the matter, this criminal revision petition is dismissed.
8. However, the petitioner is 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 petitioner herein, will be considered by the learned Sessions Judge.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated: 7th October, 2025
R.Kumar/
