The Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings, holding that part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction, and stated that the order would not prejudice the trial.
The petition for quashing the criminal proceeding was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 750 of 2010
… … Petitioners
Versus
... … Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate Mr. Samir Kumar Lall, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, A.P.P. For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate
-----
Order No. 13
Dated: 01.05.2019
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The present petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 28.08.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Complaint Case No. 493 of 2006, whereby cognizance of the offences under Sections 406/420/120-B I.P.C. has been taken against the petitioners.
2. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that on perusal of the complaint, it would evident that no cause of action has arisen in the jurisdiction of the court at Dhanbad. In fact, the entire occurrence is alleged to have taken place at Purulia (West Bengal). As such, the learned court below has no jurisdiction to try the said case.
3. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 annexing copies of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. On perusal of the said depositions, it would appear that some of the witnesses have stated that the accused persons used to come to village “Tantri” within Topchanchi Police Station, District-Dhanbad to collect money from the investors on behalf of M/s Remon MLM (P) Ltd.
4. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not supposed to go into the details of the depositions of the
2
prosecution witnesses as the trial is still continuing, yet on prima facie consideration of the same, it can at least be said that the part of cause of action has arisen in the district of Dhanbad and as such, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the court at Dhanbad has no jurisdiction to try the case is misconceived. 5. Thus, I see no reason to entertain the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the factual observation in this order shall not prejudice the case of the petitioners in the trial and the same shall be decided on the basis of the evidence available on record.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Manish
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court has jurisdiction to try the case given the alleged occurrence in a different jurisdiction.
Whether the petition for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be entertained.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Prabir Gorai
Sri Biswajit Gorai
The State of Jharkhand
Sri Sewa Ram Mahto
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court