Allowed

Sweta Gupta v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2022CRLR/549/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision challenged an order quashing a criminal complaint due to lack of jurisdiction. The High Court held that the offence was committed when the revisionist's bank account was in Meerut, thereby granting the Court jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dismissing the complaint was set aside, and the lower court was directed to reconsider the matter based on the findings regarding territorial jurisdiction.

Sweta Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 549 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Sweta Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Vijit Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the revisionist is present.

¶6

This is a revision filed by the revisionist against the order dated 29.11.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 215 of 2020 (Sweta Gupta Vs. Rahul Gupta and others) under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 and 120B IPC Police Station Railway Road, District Meerut wherein the complaint of the revisionist has been dismissed on the ground of being no jurisdiction to the Court.

¶7

It is argued that at the time of offence savings bank account of the revisionist was in Meerut and thus, the Meerut Court has jurisdiction regarding crime committed with the account of the revisionist. Previously, the revisionist had filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in District Ghaziabad, which was rejected vide order dated 30.08.2019, appended at page-'29' of the paper book. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad opined that as the accused persons are residents of District Meerut and the documents were signed by them in District Meerut and the incident mentioned in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is said to have occurred in District Bijnore, so the court of Ghaziabad has no jurisdiction to try the dispute.

¶8

It is further argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that at the time of incident account of the revisionist was in Meerut. The sister-in-law of the applicant is an employee of State Bank of India, Bijnore from there she transferred the total amount of Rs. 1,18,000/- from the account of the revisionist in the account of rest accused persons. As the amount is transferred from the account of the applicant, which was at Meerut at the time of incident, so the Meerut court has jurisdiction to try the dispute.

¶9

The order dated 30.08.2019 of Ghaziabad Court is appended at page - '29' of the paper book, whereby the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 6, Ghaziabad has dismissed the application of the applicant moved under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on the ground that as the offence has been committed in

¶10

Bijnore and Meerut, therefore, this court (Ghaziabad Court) has no jurisdiction to try the dispute. Now, the Judicial Magistrate, Meerut vide order dated 29.11.2021 has opined that as the bank account of the applicant is in District Ghaziabad and the offence has been committed in District Bijnore so the court of District Meerut has no jurisdiction to try the dispute. It is noteworthy that the saving bank account No. 35012436998 of the revisionist was originally in Meerut, which was transferred from there to Moradnagar (Ghaziabad) on 18.02.2019 and the offence is said to have been committed from 17.05.2016 to 02.12.2016 when the saving bank account of the revisionist was at Meerut only. In this connection Section 179 Cr.P.C. can be looked into, which runs as under:-

¶11

179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues. When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.

¶12

Thus, according to this section, the offence may be enquired or tried by the court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has been ensued.

¶13

As per revisionist, when her saving bank account was at Meerut in the year 2016 then only the offence was committed and the amount was withdrawn from her account at Meerut and transferred to different places.

¶14

In my opinion, the offence is said to have been committed at the time when saving bank account of the revisionist was admittedly in Meerut, so it has been wrongly opined by the Judicial Magistrate, Meerut that the Meerut Court has no jurisdiction to try the dispute.

¶15

The revision is allowed at the stage of admission only. The impugned order dated 29.11.2021 is hereby set aside. The lower court is directed to pass order on the basis of findings given above again.

¶16

Order Date :- 22.2.2022 gp

¶17

Digitally signed by GANESH PRAKASH Date: 2022.02.24 18:22:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sweta Gupta v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sweta Gupta v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dushyant Chauhan Vs Harish Chandra

Israr Ahmad and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Milan Mishra Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Sadakat Ali Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Jagdish Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Brij Kishor Tiwari Vs Manik Lal Pal and 2 Others