TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the complaint cases pending before different Magistrates, along with the connected police case, should be tried together before one court and the transferred cases moved to the court where one complaint and the police case were pending; (ii) Whether the petitions under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed directly before the High Court were maintainable without first approaching the Sessions Court.
Issue (i): Whether the complaint cases pending before different Magistrates, along with the connected police case, should be tried together before one court and the transferred cases moved to the court where one complaint and the police case were pending.
Analysis: The allegations in the complaint cases and the police case arose out of the same housing project and substantially the same factual matrix. Since the police investigation had already culminated in a final report, the situation attracted the procedure under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requiring the complaint case and the police-report case to be tried together. To avoid prejudice and the possibility of conflicting decisions, the court exercised transfer power under Section 407.
Conclusion: The transfer request was allowed, and the cases pending before the IV-ACMM were directed to be transferred to the I-ACMM for joint trial and disposal.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitions under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed directly before the High Court were maintainable without first approaching the Sessions Court.
Analysis: Though the High Court and the Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction under Section 438, the settled practice is that the Sessions Court should ordinarily be approached first, unless special circumstances justify direct recourse to the High Court. No special or adequate reason was shown for bypassing the Sessions Court in these petitions.
Conclusion: The anticipatory bail petitions were not entertained in the first instance, and the petitioners were left to approach the Sessions Court.
Final Conclusion: The petitions were disposed of with transfer of the connected trial matters to one court, while the prayer for anticipatory bail before the High Court was declined at the threshold.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a complaint case and a police-report case arise from the same transaction, they should be tried together under Section 210; and although anticipatory bail jurisdiction is concurrent, the Sessions Court should ordinarily be approached first absent special reasons.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
