Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur was faced with a criminal writ petition challenging the suo moto invocation of revisional jurisdiction by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur, to examine an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.4, Nagpur. The background of the case is a road accident on 25 February 2024 at Ramjhula Bridge, resulting in two deaths. The police registered Crime No.122/2024 initially under Sections 304-A, 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, later adding Section 304 IPC. The accused, Ritika @ Ritu Dinesh Maloo, was initially arrested and released on bail for the offence under Section 304-A. After invocation of Section 304, she sought pre-arrest bail but failed up to the High Court. By order dated 30 August 2024 in Criminal Writ Petition No.441/2024, the investigation was transferred to the State CID. The CID applied for cancellation of bail and permission to rearrest, which was granted by the Sessions Judge on 25 September 2024. On the same day, the CID moved the Magistrate seeking permission to arrest the accused (a female) during night hours. The Magistrate, considering Section 46(4) CrPC (now Section 43(5) BNSS), permitted the arrest with a rider that it be made by a woman police officer following due process. The arrest was effected in the midnight. On 26 September 2024, the accused was produced before the Magistrate, who rejected the CID's prayer for police custody remand. The State challenged that order before the Sessions Court. Meanwhile, on 30 September 2024, the Sessions Judge suo moto invoked revisional powers under Section 397 CrPC to examine the Magistrate's order dated 25 September 2024 permitting night arrest. The petitioner, a kin of one of the deceased, challenged this suo moto action. The High Court noted that the Sessions Judge has concurrent powers to examine records, but such suo moto exercise must be backed by some cause or reason. The impugned order was silent on what prompted the exercise, and neither the CID nor the accused was aggrieved by the Magistrate's order. The court held that judicial orders cannot be based on personal whims and must assign reasons. The Magistrate's order was legally valid under Section 46(4) CrPC / Section 43(5) BNSS. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the Sessions Judge's suo moto revision order dated 30 September 2024.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Suo Moto Revisional Powers - Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Requirement of Cause or Reason - The Sessions Judge has concurrent powers to call for and examine records of inferior criminal courts, but exercise of suo moto revisional powers must be backed by some cause, reason or trigger. The impugned order was silent on what prompted the exercise, and neither party was aggrieved. Held that judicial orders cannot be based on personal whims and must assign reasons (Paras 9, 15).
B) Criminal Procedure - Arrest of Female Accused - Night Arrest - Section 46(4) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 43(5) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Magistrate's Discretion - The Magistrate granted permission to arrest a female accused after sunset and before sunrise, considering the seriousness of the offence and possibility of absconding. The order was procedurally legal and within discretion. Held that the decision does not fail on procedural illegality (Paras 5, 16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in exercising suo moto revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC to examine the order of the Magistrate permitting arrest of a female accused during night hours, when neither the prosecution nor the accused was aggrieved by the order.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur, initiating suo moto criminal revision. The court held that the Sessions Judge's order was silent on any cause or reason for exercising suo moto revisional powers, and neither party was aggrieved by the Magistrate's order. The Magistrate's order was legally valid under Section 46(4) CrPC / Section 43(5) BNSS.
Law Points
- Suo moto revisional powers under Section 397 CrPC require some cause or reason
- Assignment of reasons is heart of judicial system
- Magistrate's discretion under Section 46(4) CrPC / Section 43(5) BNSS to permit night arrest of female accused is valid if exercised judicially
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (10) 4
Criminal Writ Petition No. 783/2024
Vinay Joshi, Vrushali V. Joshi
Mr. A.G. Hunge for Petitioner, Mr. D.V. Chavhan (Senior Advocate/G.P.) with Mr. N.H. Joshi (A.P.P.) for Respondent No.1, Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar for Respondent No.2, Mr. F.T. Mirza (Senior Advocate) with Mr. A. Kukday for Registrar, High Court Bombay
State of Maharashtra through Superintendent of Police, State CID Nagpur and Ritika @ Ritu Dinesh Maloo
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging the suo moto invocation of revisional jurisdiction by the Sessions Judge to examine the Magistrate's order permitting night arrest of a female accused.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Sessions Judge's order dated 30.09.2024 initiating suo moto criminal revision.
Filing Reason
The petitioner, a kin of a deceased in the road accident, challenged the Sessions Judge's suo moto action on the ground that there was no propriety or cause for invoking revisional powers.
Previous Decisions
The Magistrate had granted permission to arrest the female accused during night hours on 25.09.2024. The Sessions Judge had canceled bail and permitted arrest on 25.09.2024. The Magistrate rejected police custody remand on 26.09.2024, which was challenged by the State before the Sessions Court.
Issues
Whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in exercising suo moto revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC to examine the Magistrate's order permitting night arrest of a female accused, when neither the prosecution nor the accused was aggrieved by the order.
Whether the impugned order of the Sessions Judge dated 30.09.2024 was valid in the absence of any cause or reason for invoking suo moto powers.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that no reason was assigned by the Sessions Judge to exercise suo moto powers, and it would hamper further process and impact pending proceedings.
Respondent No.2/accused supported the petitioner, stating that pendency of suo moto revision may affect her right to liberty and bail application.
State CID joined the submissions, contending that the Magistrate's order was justifiable and there was no occasion for the Sessions Judge to step in.
Senior Counsel for the High Court conceded that there was no justification for exercising suo moto power, as nothing in the order necessitated examination.
Ratio Decidendi
The Sessions Judge has concurrent powers under Section 397 CrPC to examine records of inferior criminal courts, but the exercise of suo moto revisional powers must be backed by some cause, reason or trigger. Judicial orders cannot be based on personal whims and must assign reasons. In the absence of any grievance from either party or any apparent illegality, the suo moto invocation was unjustified.
Judgment Excerpts
Though the Code empowers the Sessions Judge to exercise suo moto revisional powers, we feel that there must be some cause, reason or trigger for the Sessions Judge to form an opinion that this is a fit case to examine the order.
The judicial orders cannot be on personal whims, but, it shall be backed by at least some prima facie reasons. Needless to say that assignment of reasons is the heart of judicial system.
On the count of legality, Section 43[5] of the BNSS permits the Magistrate to grant permission to arrest a female during night hours. There exists a statutory provision to grant permission, which the learned Magistrate in his discretion has exercised.
Procedural History
The road accident occurred on 25.02.2024, leading to registration of Crime No.122/2024. The accused was initially arrested and released on bail for Section 304-A IPC. After invocation of Section 304 IPC, she sought pre-arrest bail but failed. On 30.08.2024, the High Court transferred investigation to State CID. On 25.09.2024, the Sessions Judge canceled bail and permitted arrest. On the same day, the Magistrate permitted night arrest. On 26.09.2024, the Magistrate rejected police custody remand, which the State challenged before the Sessions Court. On 30.09.2024, the Sessions Judge suo moto initiated revision to examine the night arrest permission order. The petitioner filed the present writ petition on the same day, and the High Court disposed it on 01.10.2024.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 46(4), Section 397(1)
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): Section 43(5), Section 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Section 304, Section 304-A, Section 279, Section 337, Section 338
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 184
