Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Approach to Concurrent Jurisdiction - Main points and insights
It is not mandatory to approach the Court of first instance (e.g., Sessions Court) before filing directly in the High Court in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, especially for anticipatory bail applications. Several judgments clarify that the High Court and Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., and an application can be filed directly in the High Court without first approaching the Sessions Court ["Chandrakant Alias Major Chandrakant VS State Of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand"], ["Ashu Tyagi VS State of Uttarakhand - Crimes"].
However, practice and judicial preference generally lean towards filing first before the Sessions Court, as it allows the Court of Sessions to exercise its jurisdiction and provides the High Court with the benefit of the Sessions Court's opinion if the matter is appealed or transferred ["Hare Ram Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh"], ["Jain Swetamwar Sangh Dhamotar VS Gajendra Singh S/o Shri Dayal Singh - Rajasthan"].
Some judgments emphasize that approaching the Sessions Court first is a rule of practice rather than a strict legal requirement, and the High Court may entertain an application directly if there are special or exceptional circumstances ["Chandrakant Alias Major Chandrakant VS State Of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand"], ["Manjeet Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1691"].
The legal position is that concurrent jurisdiction permits parties to approach either court directly, but preferably they should approach the Sessions Court first, especially for bail applications under Sections 438 and 439 Cr.P.C., to promote orderly procedure and judicial efficiency ["Mayur Bordoloi VS State of Assam - Gauhati"], ["GURDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER vs U T OF J AND K TH INCHARGE SHO POLICE STATION POONCH - Jammu and Kashmir"].
Analysis and Conclusion
The consensus across multiple judgments is that approaching the Court of first instance is not legally mandatory in cases of concurrent jurisdiction; parties have the option to file directly in the High Court. Nonetheless, judicial practice and principles of procedural propriety generally recommend first approaching the Sessions Court, especially for bail applications, to facilitate a smoother judicial process and benefit from the Sessions Court’s opinion.
The courts recognize that direct filing in the High Court is permissible, particularly when exceptional circumstances are present or when expediency is necessary. Ultimately, the choice depends on the facts of the case, but concurrent jurisdiction provides flexibility to litigants, and strict mandatory approach is not enforced ["Chandrakant Alias Major Chandrakant VS State Of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand"], ["Ashu Tyagi VS State of Uttarakhand - Crimes"], ["Manjeet Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1691"].
References:
In the complex world of legal proceedings, jurisdiction determines where a case can be filed. But what happens when multiple courts share concurrent jurisdiction? A common question arises: In case of concurrent jurisdiction, is it mandatory to approach court of first instance? This is particularly relevant in criminal matters like anticipatory bail applications under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the successor to the CrPC.
This blog post breaks down the legal principles, statutory framework, and judicial insights to clarify this issue. While courts emphasize judicious exercise of power, it's generally not mandatory to start at the lowest level. However, strategic considerations often play a role. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Concurrent jurisdiction exists when two or more courts have the authority to hear the same type of case or application simultaneously. This promotes flexibility, accessibility, and efficiency in India's justice system. In criminal law, it commonly arises between High Courts and Sessions Courts for bail matters, revisions, and initial filings. Manjeet Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1691
For instance, under Section 482 BNSS (mirroring old CrPC Section 438 for anticipatory bail), both the High Court and Sessions Court can entertain applications. This setup avoids rigid hierarchies but requires courts to apply their mind judiciously. Manjeet Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1691
Statutes like the BNSS explicitly grant concurrent powers without mandating a sequential approach. Key provisions include:
These provisions underscore that while lower courts are often preferable for judicial economy, parties cannot be compelled to approach them first. High Courts retain discretion based on facts, fairness, and efficiency. Manjeet Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1691
Courts have consistently ruled against mechanical relegation to lower forums. A pivotal insight from recent case law: The High Court must apply its mind to determine if the case merits direct adjudication or referral to Sessions Court. Failure to do so can result in orders being set aside. Manjeet Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1691
In revision matters, while revisional jurisdiction is concurrent, it's often advisable (but not mandatory) to approach Sessions Court first: Under section 397 of Cr. P. C. , there is a concurrent jurisdiction of this Court and the Sessions court but in such matters first the litigant has to approach to the Sessions Court. N. R. DESAI VS Y. N. PAREKH - 2001 Supreme(Guj) 173 However, exceptions exist where direct High Court approach is justified.
Other contexts reinforce discretion:- Revisional Powers: The revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and High Court is concurrent, and ordinarily a person aggrieved must approach the Sessions Court first. Yet, first informants can invoke Sessions jurisdiction directly in acquittal revisions. Sou. Sunita W/o Ramkrishna Dahule VS State of Maharashtra - 2007 Supreme(Bom) 838- Civil Transfers: Courts can transfer cases under Section 24 CPC for justice, showing flexibility beyond rigid first-instance rules. Talluri Swathi W/o. Dr. Satsih Chandra VS Bathini Venkatesh S/ o. Nagaswara Rao - 2022 Supreme(AP) 1445
Though not mandatory, courts may guide parties to lower forums for:
In anticipatory bail, High Courts analyze facts before deciding. Mechanical dismissals are frowned upon: Courts should not mechanically dismiss or relegate cases without considering the facts and legal provisions involved. Manjeet Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1691
From civil parallels, concurrent findings by lower courts limit High Court interference under Section 100 CPC, emphasizing lower court primacy where possible. Umeshbhai Sumanbhai Chamadbhai Chaudhari VS Tulsibhai Sudharabhai Chaudhari - 2023 Supreme(Guj) 439Narsinhbhai Naranbhai Gohel VS Suvasben Jayeshbhai Patel - 2023 Supreme(Guj) 442
In concurrent jurisdiction scenarios, it is typically not mandatory to approach the court of first instance. Statutes and judgments prioritize judicial discretion, facts, and fairness over rigid rules. High Courts can entertain matters directly but must apply their mind, especially in anticipatory bail under BNSS Section 482. Manjeet Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1691
While advisable for efficiency, bypassing lower courts isn't barred, as affirmed in bail and revision contexts. Talluri Swathi W/o. Dr. Satsih Chandra VS Bathini Venkatesh S/ o. Nagaswara Rao - 2022 Supreme(AP) 1445 Always tailor your approach to case merits.
Key Takeaways:- Concurrent jurisdiction offers choice, not compulsion.- Courts must judiciously exercise power; no mechanical referrals.- Approach lower courts for appeals/remedies, but direct High Court filings are viable.
Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence. For personalized guidance, consult legal experts. This analysis draws from established precedents to aid understanding.
References:- Manjeet Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1691 – Core on BNSS anticipatory bail jurisdiction.- Talluri Swathi W/o. Dr. Satsih Chandra VS Bathini Venkatesh S/ o. Nagaswara Rao - 2022 Supreme(AP) 1445, DR. TALLURI SWATHI VS BATHINI VENKATESH - 2022 Supreme(AP) 410 – No compulsion under CrPC 439.- Sou. Sunita W/o Ramkrishna Dahule VS State of Maharashtra - 2007 Supreme(Bom) 838, N. R. DESAI VS Y. N. PAREKH - 2001 Supreme(Guj) 173 – Revision insights.- Others as cited for broader context.
#ConcurrentJurisdiction, #AnticipatoryBail, #CriminalLawIndia
It is not obligatory under Section 438 to move the Court of Session in the first instance. ... No doubt the High Court and the Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction u/s 438 Cr.P.C. ... This means that High Court and Court of Session have concurrent jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail for an offence. Hence, an application for grant of anticipatory bail directly in the High Court....
These are reasons which have generally prevailed with the High Courts in holding that where it is a case of concurrent jurisdiction a party should ordinarily apply to the inferior Court in the first instance. The rule is not an absolute rule. It is to be applied ex debito justitiae. ... Advocate General appearing for the State, per contra, would submit that even though the Sessions Court and the High Court have concurrent ....
In the light of the aforestated legal position, the High Court ought to have applied its mind to determine as to whether the cases on hand warranted exercise of jurisdiction by it in the first instance without relegating the accused to the Sessions Court. ... Directorate of Enforcement”, 2024 INSC 512 : (2024) 5 Supreme 359 made this position clear and declared that it would not be necessary for an accused to approach the Sessions Court in the first ....
We, therefore, hold relying upon the Full Bench ruling laid down in 1968 KLT 495 and on the basis of the new section of the Code that no party can approach this Court direct without moving the Sessions Judge at the first instance in revision." ... ... The position was stated in terms absolute imposing a total ban on the party approaching the High Court in the first instance in revision. In Raman Pillai's case (1975 KLT 739) the position was reaffirm....
In the said case, the First Appellate Court set aside the judgment of the trial court. ... Kanniah Naidu (1996 3 SCC 392), this Court held: "It is now well settled that concurrent findings of fact of trial court and first appellate court cannot be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of Civil Procedure ... In a case where from a giv....
In the said case, the First Appellate Court set aside the judgment of the trial court. ... Kanniah Naidu (1996 3 SCC 392), this Court held: "It is now well settled that concurrent findings of fact of trial court and first appellate court cannot be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of Civil Procedure ... In a case where from a giv....
As regards the case of Mubarik (supra) which has been relied upon by the counsel for the applicant, a perusal of said judgment reveals that the terms of reference in the said case before the Hon’ble Division Bench was Whether the High Court and the Court of Sessions exercises concurrent jurisdiction ... In view of this Court, it is settled position of law that the High Court and the Sessions Court have concurrent #....
So far as the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Babu lal (Supra) is concerned, in the said case, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that against the dismissal of transfer application, the party applying may approach the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court ... Thus, in the light of aforesaid judicial precedents, this Court is of the opinion that the jurisdiction of the District #HL_ST....
The language under Section 439 Cr.P.C. means that High Court and Sessions Court have concurrent powers or jurisdiction. In such scenario, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that party cannot be compelled to first approach the Sessions Court to file application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. ... So, it is clear that when the High Court as well as the District Court have concurrent jurisdiction#HL_....
The language under Section 439 Cr.P.C. means that High Court and Sessions Court have concurrent powers or jurisdiction. In such scenario, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that party cannot be compelled to first approach the Sessions Court to file application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. ... So, it is clear that when the High Court as well as the District Court have concurrent jurisdiction#HL_....
The jurisdiction is concurrent and it is always advisable for the parties to approach the court lowest in hierarchy to enable them to pursue appropriate remedies in appeal. The said decision nowhere says that only this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain an application alleging violation of injunction granted in the disposal of the appeal.
(See 2002 Cri. L.J. 4196 :Ms. Cerena D'souza Vs. State of Maharashtra and others ) In Kishan Swaroop Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi( AIR 1998 Supreme Court 990) the Apex Court relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1962 SC 1788) has held that High Court has jurisdiction to entertain revision against an order of acquittal In K. Chinnaswamy Reddy's case (supra) the Apex Court has held that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not....
Here reference may also be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries (P) Ltd., A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 1240. It is, however, made clear that the learned trial Court shall afford the parties opportunity to lead evidence if they so desire, before deciding the said issues." In this case it was observed by the Honble Supreme Court that the Court should decide the question of jurisdiction in the first instance.
In para-14 of the petition, the petitioner has given out that he has no other alternative efficacious remedy except to approach this Honble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When this application is rejected, this prayer is made by the petitioner, which cannot be said to be an honest approach of the petitioner. Under section 397 of Cr. P. C. , there is a concurrent jurisdiction of this Court and the Sessions court but in such matters first the litigant has to approach to the Sessions Court. The petitioner has not given out any reason whatsoever why he ha....
It is, however, made clear that the learned trial court shall afford the parties opportunity to lead evidence. In this case it was observed by the Honble Supreme Court that the Court should decide the question of jurisdiction in the first instance. Here reference may also be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd., 1997(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 473.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
