JUDGMENT :

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. The present cases pertain to the filing of the revision petitions by the petitioners against the Order(s) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate(s). The plea taken by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners is that since there is concurrent jurisdiction provided under Sections 399 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Corresponding Sections 438, 440, 442 and 528 of the BNSS) respectively, therefore, the present petitions are maintainable before this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has predominantly raised the plea that since the legislature has provided concurrent jurisdiction of revision to the Sessions Court and the High Court, therefore, the doors of the High Court cannot be shut for the petitioners as the second revision petition is barred under the BNSS, 2023. Therefore, the petitioners would be deprived of the invoking jurisdiction of this Court, if the revision petition is relegated to the Sessions Court.

3. This Court has considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. There cannot not be any quarrel to the proposition that the statute provides the concurrent revisional jurisdiction to the Ses