Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2025) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 20874 = 2025:PHHC:120772
Decided on: 04.09.2025
Present:
Mr. Abhaypal Singh Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Chanchal K. Singla, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent no.1.
Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate, for respondent no.2.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 397 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 499, 500, 120-B – Defamation Complaint – Summoning Order – Revisional Jurisdiction -- High Court and Court of Sessions have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain revision petitions – Petitioner directly approached High Court bypassing Sessions Court – No reasons assigned for not availing alternative statutory remedy – No peculiar circumstances pleaded – Petition not maintainable in view of efficacious alternative remedy – Petitioner relegated to approach the Sessions Court.
(Para 5, 6)
***
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL) –
The petition has been filed against the order, dated 24.07.2024, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Chandigarh, whereby complaint filed by the petitioner for summoning the accused and trying them for offences under Sections 499, 500 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents have taken preliminary objection to maintainability of the petition, as the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy to approach the Sessions Court against the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that this Court as well as the Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction to examine the records of any proceedings before an inferior Court in terms of Section 397 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petition should be entertained.
4. Heard.
5. Although this Court as well as the Court of Sessions has concurrent jurisdiction to entertain revision petition against the impugned order, dated 24.07.2024, passed by the CJM, no reasons are forthcoming as to why the petitioner has bypassed the Sessions Court and approached this Court straightway by filing the instant petition. It is not the petitioner’s case either that he is unable to approach the Sessions Court on account of any peculiar circumstances. Accordingly, this Court finds no justification to entertain the petition in the face of efficacious remedy of filing a revision petition against the impugned order being available to the petitioner.
6. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Sessions Court to challenge the impugned order passed by the CJM, dated 24.07.2024, if so advised.
Order accordingly.
********