Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a criminal appeal arising from an order of the Delhi High Court dated 28.10.2014, which dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant/complainant, Chander Bhan Singh, against the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate accepting the closure report filed by the CBI. The appellant alleged that his son was wrongfully killed by police on 11.01.2002. The High Court, in its order, directed the appellant to first approach the Sessions Court, citing concurrent revisionary jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC and the absence of special circumstances to bypass the lower forum. The Supreme Court, noting that the case had been pending for almost sixteen years, did not consider it appropriate to decide the question of law regarding concurrent revisionary jurisdiction. Instead, the Court set aside the High Court's order, restored the case before the High Court, and requested it to hear the matter on merits expeditiously. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits and granted liberty to the parties to approach the Supreme Court again if aggrieved. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Concurrent Revisionary Jurisdiction - Section 397 CrPC - Choice of Forum - The High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the complainant against the Magistrate's order accepting closure report, directing him to first approach the Sessions Court. The Supreme Court set aside this order, leaving the question of law open, and restored the case before the High Court for hearing on merits, considering the long pendency of the case since 2002 and the need for speedy justice (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the revision petition and directing the complainant to first approach the Sessions Court, given the concurrent revisionary jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order dated 28.10.2014, restored Criminal Revision Petition No. 557 of 2012 before the High Court, and requested the High Court to hear the matter on merits expeditiously. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to parties to approach the Supreme Court again if aggrieved.
Law Points
- Concurrent revisionary jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC
- Speedy justice as constitutional right
- Choice of forum in revision petitions
