( 2025:JHHC:30989 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1158 of 2024 1. Ram Pravesh Pandit, son of late Tanik Pandit, aged about 48 years, resident of Qr. No. E 3 N.T.T, Campus Near D.A.V Public School, P.O. and P.S. R.I.T, Jamshedpur 2. Birendra Prasad Srivastava, son of late Ramadhar Prasad aged about 63 years, resident of 203, Kalpanapuri (W) P.O. and P.S. Adityapur, District Seraikella-Kharsawan ...... … Petitioners Versus Central Bureau of Investigation .…. … Opposite Party -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners : In Person For the C.B.I. : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Spl. P.P. for C.B.I. Mr. Ayush, A.C. to Mr. P. Pallav 10/ 08.10.2025: Heard petitioners appearing in person and learned counsel for the C.B.I. 2. The present revision application has been preferred for setting aside of order dated 24.08.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M-cum-Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I, Ranchi in R.C. Case No. 03(A)/2017(EOW) R along with its connected Case No. 3/2017. 3. The petitioners appearing in person submit that earlier the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has remanded the matter to the learned court to pass afresh order and pursuant to that the impugned order has been passed. They submit that a petition filed under section 239 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners, has been rejected by the learned court. 4. 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 petitioners appearing in person submit 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. The petitioners appearing in person relied on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of “Ravi Kumar Potdar Vs. M.B. Ojha and others” (Criminal Revision No. 274 of 215) and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the ( 2025:JHHC:30989 ) case of “ Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others” (Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:166981). They submit that in view of that this petition may kindly be entertained. 5. Learned counsel for the C.B.I submits that the firstly the petitioners are required to move before the learned Sessions Judge in the light of provision made therein and as has been held in Criminal Revision No. 417 of 2023. (Dharam Kumar Saw @ Dharam Kr. Gupta and others Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another”) 6. The scope and ambit of Section 438 and 442 of BNSS 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. 7. The 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. 8. The judgment relied by the petitioners appearing in person in the case of “Ravi Kumar Potdar (supra) is concerned in that case similar view has been taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and approaching the High Court ( 2025:JHHC:30989 ) directly has been deprecated and in that case also the matter was remitted back to the Sessions Judge to decide the criminal revision petition. In the case of Vijay Singh (supra) of the Allahabad High Court, the issue was with regard to non maintainability of the second revision petition and thus this judgment relied by the petitioners are on different footing. The first judgment relied by the petitioners is supporting the view of this Court and so far second revision aspect is concerned that aspect has been dealt with elaborately 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”) 9. 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. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi- Dt. 08.10.2025