TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1817X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pelled to invoke the jurisdiction of Sessions Court first and then come to the High Court as it would amount to limiting his right and liberty under the Constitution of India. It is very clear that the High Court and the Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction and no person can be restrained to move application before the High Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. directly, therefore, it is held that the application filed by the applicants in all three cases are maintainable. The applications are admitted for hearing. - M.CR.C. (A) No. 918 of 2019 along with M.Cr.C.(A) No. 1016 of 2019 & M.Cr.C.(A) No .1020 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 2-7-2019 - Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J. Mrs. Madhunisha Singh, Counsel for the applicant (in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court in Mohan Lal Ors. Vs. Prem Chand Ors. , reported in AIR 1980 Himachal Pradesh 36, in which it was held that in case of anticipatory bail, to force a person to move the Sessions Judge first may result in uncalled for curtailment of his right. In the same judgment of Mubarik and another (supra) reference has been made to Division Bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Y. Chendrasekhara Rao Ors. Vs. Y.V. Kamala Kumari Ors. , reported in 1993 Cr.L.J. 3508, wherein it was held that it was not obligatory to file an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., before the Sessions Court at the first instance. In the same judgment reference has also been made to the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Balan Vs. State of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Cr.P.C. are not maintainable. On perusal of the judgment in Mubarik and another (supra), which has clearly dealt with question of concurrent jurisdiction of High Court and Sessions Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and answered it, it appears that law is well settled that if a party chooses to move such application directly before the High Court, that has to be entertained directly since he can not be compelled to invoke the jurisdiction of Sessions Court first and then come to the High Court as it would amount to limiting his right and liberty under the Constitution of India. Judgment of Karnataka High Court in case of Mr. Dinesh Gowda (supra), the reliance of respondent, does not make any specific statement against the concurren ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
