J UMADEVI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has gained access to this court under Section 397, Cr. P.C. by which petitioners who are arraigned as accused in C.C. 22101/07 seek an order of discharge. When the matter is taken up for admission, preliminary objection is raised by the respondent-State that the revision before this court is not maintainable as the order impugned is passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) relating to prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34, I.P.C. Any order passed by such court is amenable to revision under Section 397, Cr. P.C., before the court of session/District Judge.

(2.) Consequent to such preliminary objection raised by the State, I have allowed learned counsel on both sides to address arguments for and against.

(3.) Sri. Rajendra Prasad, learned senior counsel for the petitioner reiterates that the High Court and sessions court enjoy concurrent jurisdiction under Section 397, Cr. P.C. and therefore, petitioners have the option to choose either of the courts. Technically they cannot be non-suited only on the ground that the sessions court has revisional power.