IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31363 of 2010 RAGHUPATI SINGH @ MAHATO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 25.8.2010. Heard. The miscellaneous petition is out and out misconceived. The order of the Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram circuit at Bikramganj passed on 28.4.2010 in Cr.Revision no.231 of 2009 also appears simply of no value inasmuch as the learned Sessions Judge did not have the jurisdiction to entertain any revision against the order passed by the S.D.M., Bikramganj refusing to file a complaint for alleged commission of an offence under Section 188 IPC. Had the learned Sessions Judge consulted the provisions of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. he could have found the provisions in that particular Section which indicates that the complaint for alleged commission of an offence under Sections 172 to 188(both inclusive) could be filed in writing by the court or by such officer of the court as that court may authorise in writing in that behalf, or of some other court to which that court is subordinate. It could be pointed out to the learned Sessions Judge that the word ‘subordinate’ refers to the administrative subordination of the officer 2 who presided over the court and is never to be misinterpreted as judicial subordination. With the above observation, this petition is dismissed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)