( 2025:JHHC:32968 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 932 of 2025 1.Badal Gope, aged about 54 years, son of Lakhan Gope, resident of Somardih, P.O. and P.S. Rajnagar, District-Seraikella Kharsawan 2. Prasanna Gope, age 62 years, son of Purno Gope, resident of village- Hesal, P.O. and P.s. Rajnagar, District-Seraikella Kharsawan 3. Bimal Gope, age 32 years, son of Panu Gope, resident of village- Hesal, P.O. and P.s. Rajnagar, District-Seraikella Kharsawan 4. Gopal Modak, aged 51 years, son of Banshi Modak, resident of village Haldipokhar, P.O. and P.S. Kawali, District-East Singhbhum ...... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners : Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal, Advocate For the State :Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl. P.P. 04/ 04.11.2025: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State 2. The present revision application has been preferred for setting aside of order dated 05.07.2025 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, passed in G.R. Case No. 2393 of 2015 (Potka P.S. Case No. 37/2015), whereby the learned court has been pleased to reject the discharge petition filed by the petitioners. 3. On query made by this Court as to why this criminal revision has been filed before this Court directly without moving before the learned Sessions Judge, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that concurrent jurisdiction are there of revision to the Sessions Judge or before the High Court and in view of that the said revision application has been filed directly before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that this Court has already decided the issue in question so far filing of the revision petition directly before the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 417 of 2023 (Dharam Kumar Saw @ Dharam Kr. Gupta and others Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another”). He submits that in view of that the petitioners are firstly required to move before the learned Sessions Judge. 5. The scope and ambit of Section 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagrik ( 2025:JHHC:32968 ) Suraksh Sanhita, 2023, 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 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 and this aspect has already been decided by this Court in Cr. Revision No. 417 of 2024 (Dharam Kumar Saw @ Dharam Kr. Gupta and others Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another”) 6. There is no mention of any special circumstances of filing present revision petition directly in the High Court. 7. Consequently, this criminal revision is dismissed. 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. The grounds and pleading taken by the petitioners will be considered by the learned Sessions Judge. 8. Office will hand over the certified copy of F.I.R and the impugned order to the learned counsel for the petitioner substituting the same by photocopy of F.I.R and impugned order. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi- Dt. 04.11.2025