Dismissed

B.Nanda Kishore v. State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Dec 2023CRLP/1967/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the petitioner's plea to quash criminal proceedings challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Markapur Magistrate Court. Relying on the Cr.P.C, the Court held that since the cause of action and wrongful loss occurred in Markapur, the local court had jurisdiction to try the case, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition filed for quashing of proceedings challenging jurisdiction was dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications stood closed.

B.Nanda Kishore Vs State of Ap — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1967 OF 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

Bysani Nanda Kishore, S/o Late Krishna Murthy, aged 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Thirumalanayunipeta Street, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa^District.

¶9

...Petitioner/Accused No.2

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings at Amaravathi.

¶12

Rechintala Sandhya, W/o venkateswara Prasad, aged 37 years, R/o.D.No.7/170 A/1, Nehru Bazaar, Markapur, YSR Kadapa^District.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in^{thecircumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC No.92 of 2014, on the file of First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Markapur against the Petitioner/Accused.

¶15

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2019

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in^{thecircumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in CC No.92 of 2014, on the file of First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Markapur including the appearance of the Accused till the disposal of the Main Quash^Petition.

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing^{theMemorandumof} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh on behalf of the Respondent^No.1 and of Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Respondent^No.2.

¶18

The Court made the following:

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1967 of 2019

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

The police Markapur town filed charge sheet against the accused alleging that the accused have sold the property i.e. Plot Nos. 252 and 259 situated in Survey No.471/2^at Modameedipalli or Kothapalli of Proddatur, screening the disposal of the same by the husband of Accused during^his life time i.e. on 24.10.2009 approached the DefactoComplainant at her house Markapur, convinced that dishonestly and fraudulent with deceitful words and^settled the rate of plots at Rs.20,00,000/each and thereby induced the plot consideration amount of Rs.40,00,000/towards two plots in the presence of the witnesses^andon the same day executed registered sale deeds in favour^ofthe 2nd Respondent-Defacto complainant vide document No.7332 and 7333 of 2009 dated 24.10.2009. 2. The 2nd respondent-Defacto Complainant who is in need of money want to dispose of the plots purchased^from the accused have consulted the broker for which the broker asked to produce the documents pertaining to the plots^and \

¶23

¶24

also to obtain Encumbrance Certificate for the plots^which were purchased from the accused. Accordingly, the defacto complainant has obtained Encumbrance Certificate and then the Defacto Complainant came to know that the^said plots were disposed of by Kalamadugu Reddaiah to one Gopavaram Srinivasulu on 30.10.2010 vide document No.9829/2010 and the same was informed to the accused to made FIR. Therefore, on the complaint received under Section 156 clause (3) Crl.P.C., the police registered^acrime vide FIR No: 14/2013 under Section 120(B), 420, 425,^IPC for cheating of the 2nd respondent - Defacto complainant with dishonest and fraudulent intention in order to gain wrongfully and to cause wrongful loss to the defactocomplainant.

¶25

After investigation the Markapur police laid charge sheet and .the Court registered as C.C. No.92 of 2013^and issued summons to the accused by the Judicial Magistrate of First class, Markapur.

¶26

The present Criminal petition is filed to call for^the records in C.C. No.92 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial

¶27

/ ✓

¶28

¶29

Magistrate of First Class, Markapur and to quash the^same on the ground that in order to settle the dispute,^the2nd respondent- Defacto Complainant has maliciously instituted the case against the petitioner-accused and the properties are situated in Proddatur and the complaint was lodged before the police, Markapur, where the police as well^asthe Court has no jurisdiction to investigate the crime or to conduct trial by the Magistrate respectively. Hence, prayed to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the C.C.^No.92of 2013.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would contend that under Section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court at Markapur having jurisdiction to conduct trial when an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which is ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by^aCourt within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been^doneor such consequence has ensued. Hence, would pray to dismiss the Criminal petition and to direct the learned Magistrate to proceed with trial and to dispose of^thecase as expeditiously as possible.

¶31

¶32

The sections that are germane for consideration in^the context for determining the case are 178, 179 and 181 (4) of

¶33

criminal procedure code which reads thus:

¶34

Place of inquiry or trial,

¶35

(a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or

¶36

(b) where an offence is committed, partly in one local area and partly in another, or

¶37

¶38

(dl where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.

¶39

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.

¶40

Place of trial in case of certain offences.

¶41

Clause (4) Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the ' offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person.

¶42

After reading the entire judgment of HonTale Supreme Court in Rajiv Modi v. Sanjay Jain and others (2009)^13SCC

¶43

¶44

241 and judgements quoted therein the following is summarized on the issue of territorial jurisdiction:^thatthe High court wouldn't justify to quash the complaint^onthe ground that no cause of action has arisen in respect^ofthe offences under the provisions of IPC, that even if^asmall fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court would have territorial jurisdiction^to entertain the case and to constitute territorial jurisdiction, the whole or a part of a cause of action must have^arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the court and^thesame must be decided on the basis of the averments ihade^inthe complaint without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts and the High Court has no jurisdiction to examine correctness or otherwise of the allegations and the High Court would^have to proceed entirely on the basis of allegations made^inthe complaint and would restricted to ascertaining whether^on the allegations, a cause of action is shown, the jurisdiction does not extend to trial of issues which must fairly be decided on the hearing. If it is prima facie of the^opinion that the whole or a part of cause of action has arisen^inits

¶45

¶46

jurisdiction, it can certainly take cognizance of the complaint. There is no need to ascertain that the allegations made are true in fact. Great care should be taken by the High Court before embarking to scrutinize^the FIR/charge sheet/ complaint, on reading of the complaint or FIR, if the Court does not found any cognizable^offence within the Court may embark upon the consideration thereof and exercise the power and it is not the function^of the Court to weigh the pros and cons of the prosecution case or to consider the necessity of strict compliance^with the provisions which are considered mandatory and its effect of non-compliance.

¶47

In Asit Bhattacharjee v. Hanuman Prasad Ojha and others /(2007) 5 SCC 786 ], the HonTDle Supreme Court^has

¶48

observed that

¶49

Section 181 provides for place of trial in case of certain offences. Sub-section (4) of Section 181 was introduced in the Code of Criminal Procedure in 1973 as there existed conflict in the decisions of various High Courts as regards commission of offence of criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust and with that end in view, it was provided that such an offence may be inquired into or tried by the court within wkose jurisdiction the accused was bound by law or by contract to render

¶50

¶51

accounts or return the entrusted property, but failed to discharge that obligation.

¶52

Moreover, in the case of Asit Bhattacharjee (supra), the Apex Court has observed as under:

¶53

Furthermore, whether the offence of forgery of some documents committed or some other criminal misconducts are said to have, been committed in furtherance of the commission of the principal offence of cheating and misappropriation where for the respondents are said to have entered into a criminal conspiracy, are required to be investigated, in terms of Section 178 read with Section 181(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶54

The Section 179 of Criminal Procedure Code empowers the Court to try aggressed in an area where offence was committed and the consequences ensued. In such a situation, the Court within whose local jurisdiction such a thing was done or such consequences' ensued is empowered to hold the trial.

¶55

In the present case, the main transaction took place^at Markapur within the limits of the Town Police situated at Markapur as the accused has approached the 2nd Respondent-Defacto Complainant at Markapur and part^of

¶56

¶57

the cause of action arose in Markapur and due to the said act, the 2nd respondent herein suffered a wrongful^loss.

¶58

In view of the Sections 178, 179 and 181 (4) of the Criminal Procedure, the Court at Markapur has jurisdiction to try offences as part of the cause of action has arisen in the area of Markapur. Therefore, the Court at Markapur has jurisdiction to tiy the cases. Hence, In view of the above said reasons, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court at Markapur has no jurisdiction to trial the case or to investigate the police at Markapur is liable to be rejected and rejected and in consequence, the Criminal Petition fails.

¶59

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶60

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any

¶61

shall stand closed.

¶62

SD/- B. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ION OFFICER

¶63

To, 1. The 1 Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,^{Markapur,Prakasam} District. . 2. The Station House Officer, Markapur Police Station. 3. One CC to Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, Advocate^[OPDCJ

¶64