( 2025:JHHC:30872 ) -1- Criminal Revision No. 818 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 818 of 2025 1. Baibhav Binit Tiwari, aged about 40 years, son of Sri Gajadhar Nath Tiwari 2. Gajadhar Nath Tiwari @ Gangadhar Nath Tiwari, aged about 75 years, son of Late Indradeo Nath Tiwari 3. Annapurna Tiwari, aged about 65 years, wife of Sri Gajadhar Nath Tiwari 4. Vikash Tiwari @ Vikash Kumar, aged about 42 years, son of Sri Gajadhar Nath Tiwari 5. Bandana Tiwari @ Bandana Kumari, aged about 40 years, wife of Vikash Tiwari All residents of Tiwari Stores, Sisai Road, P.O., P.S. & District- Gumla … Petitioners -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shreya Kumari, wife of Baibhav Binit Tiwari, daughter of Shailesh Kumar Upadhyay, resident of Ramchandra Nagar, Professor Colony, Karamtoli, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District- Ranchi … Opposite Parties ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. ----- 05/07.10.2025 Heard Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This criminal revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 27.03.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.1355/2025, arising out of Complaint Case No.5600/2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class-XII, Ranchi, whereby, the learned Court has been pleased to reject the discharge petition filed by the petitioners. 3. Mr. Vikash Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that mediation was already made between the parties, which was successful and somehow opposite party no.2 is not interested to go to the matrimonial house and in view of that, the case is persisted. He further ( 2025:JHHC:30872 ) -2- Criminal Revision No. 818 of 2025 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 petitioners 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 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. ( 2025:JHHC:30872 ) -3- Criminal Revision No. 818 of 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 petitioners are 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 petitioners herein, will be considered by the learned Sessions Judge. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 7th October, 2025 Ajay/