Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 14621 (JHR)

S K ROY ALIAS SAPAN KUMAR RAI ALIAS SWAPAN KUMAR ROY v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cr.Rev./595/2025 · 2026-03-26

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:8697 --1-- Criminal Revision No. 595 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 595 of 2025 ---- S.K. Roy @ Sapan Kumar Rai @ Swapan Kumar Roy, aged about 70 years, S/o Late Nikunjalal Roy, resident of B16/15, Abhyudoy Co-operative Housing Society, EKTP Phase IV, Kolkata, PO – E.K.T., PS – Anandapur, District – Kolkata (West Bengal) .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate :- Ms. Omiya Anusha, Advocate :- Mr. Aayush Ojha, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey, Advocate ---- 05/26.03.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 12.03.2025 passed in connection with B.S. City P.S. Case No.55 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.393/2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bokaro whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. for discharge has been rejected. 3. This Court relating the discharge petition decided by learned Judicial Magistrate in the case of Dharam Kumar Saw @ Dharam Kr. Gupta & Ors. versus The State of Jharkhand and Anr. in Criminal Revision No.417 of 2023 has held that :- 13. Further, 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 2026:JHHC:8697 --2-- Criminal Revision No. 595 of 2025 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. 4. In the course of argument, the Court has queried to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as to what are the special circumstance to entertain this petition in light of observation made in paragraph No.13 of the aforesaid criminal revision passed by this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been able to point out any direct conflict of interest of learned Sessions Judge as he was not the part of enquiry or investigation or trial at any point of time and in that view of the matter no exceptional circumstance is made out to entertain this criminal revision directly before this Court. 6. At this stage, Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on instruction seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to move before the learned Sessions Judge by way of filing the fresh revision petition challenging the order of learned Judicial Magistrate. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State has got no objection. 8. Accordingly, this petition is permitted to be withdrawn and disposed of with liberty to move before the learned Sessions Judge by 2026:JHHC:8697 --3-- Criminal Revision No. 595 of 2025 way of filing the fresh revision petition 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. 9. This criminal revision petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. 10. Pending I.A., if any, is also disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 26.03.2026 Sangam/