Rajni Swarup @ Rajni Swaroop vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 5987 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Rajni Swarup @ Rajni Swaroop vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 September, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                 ( 2025:JHHC:29065 )




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 Cr. Revision No. 309 of 2025

  1. Rajni Swarup @ Rajni Swaroop, aged about 64 years, wife of Chitranjan
     Swarup
  2. Chitranjan Swarup, aged about 65 years, son of Govind Swarup
     Both residents of B-17, Sector-J, Aliganj, Lucknow, P.O. and P.S. Aliganj,
     District-Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh-226024)
                                              ...... ...     Petitioners
                            Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Nikhil Srivastav son of Dr. Ajay Kumar Srivastav, resident of C-1 Old Mines
Rescue, Nayisarai, P.O. and P.S. Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh (Jharkhand)
                                         ..... ...       Opposite Parties
                         --------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate

03/ 19.09.2025: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

counsel for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

2. The present revision application has been filed against the order dated

27.01.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh in Ramgarh P.S.

Case No. 04/2023, G.R. No. 289 of 2023 (Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.

2446 of 2024), whereby the discharge petition filed by the petitioners under section

239 of Cr.P.C., has been rejected, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Ramgarh.

3. It transpires that this petition has been filed directly before the High

Court without approaching the learned Sessions Judge.

4. The scope and ambit of Section 397 of the Code is not only

confined to the correctness or legality of the order but also to its propriety.

Both the Courts of Sessions and 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 said Code

to question correctness, legality or propriety, but when the same is passed by ( 2025:JHHC:29065 )

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.

5. This issue in question has already been decided in Criminal

Revision No. 417 of 2023 in the case of Dharam Kumar Saw @ Dharam

Kr. Gupta and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another by order

dated 11.09.2025.

6. Nothing special circumstance has been shown to this Court to directly

approaching the High Court and in view of that the case of the petitioner is covered

in the light of judgment passed in Cr. Revision No. 417 of 2023.

7. Consequently, this criminal revision is dismissed. Interim order dated

25.03.2025, is vacated. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file fresh revision

petition before the learned Sessions Judge and for purpose of limitation pendency

of this criminal revision before this Court will be taken into consideration.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi-

Dt. 19.09.2025