Krishna Kumar Variar versus Share Shoppe

s.482 - Summoning order challenged by accused on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of trial court - Petition rejected by High Court - HELD: In such cases where the accused or any other person raises an objection that the trial court has no jurisdiction in the matter, the said person, instead of rushing to higher court, should file an application before the trial court making this averment and giving the relevant facts - Whether a court has jurisdiction to try! entertain a case will, at least in part, depend upon the facts of the case - The trial court should after hearing both the sides and recording evidence, if necessary, decide the question of jurisdiction before proceeding further with the case - Impugned order set aside - Appellant, if so advised, may approach the trial court with a suitable application in this regard.

¶12

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No(s). 961-62 of 2010.

¶13

From the Judgment & Order dated 14.05.2009 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Misc. No. 1487 of 2009 and Criminal M.A. No. 5400 of 2009.

c

D

E

F

G

Vineet Bhagat, K.G. Bhagat, Manju BhageJ, Monohar Singh Bakshi, Varun Kumar for the Appellant. ~

¶20

1153

¶21

H

¶22

1154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶23

[2010] 5 S.C.R.

¶24

A Sonal Jain, Gautam Laha, Pravir Kumar Jain for the Respondent.

¶25

The following order of the Court was delivered

¶26

ORDER

¶27

B

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

Leave granted.

¶30

This appeal has been filed against the impugned C judgment and order dated 14.05.2009 of the High Court of Delhi whereby the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner herein has been dismissed.

¶31

The appellant herein is an accused under Sections 415/ D 420 IPC in which summons have been issued to him by a Court at Delhi. He challenged the summoning order on the ground that it is only the Court at Bombay which has jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. His petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Challenging the summoning order has been rejected by the High Court by the impugned order. Hence he is before E us in this appeal.

¶32

In our opinion, in such cases where the accused or any other person raises an objection that the Trial court has no jurisdiction in the matter, the said person should filed an F application before the Trial Court making this averment and giving the relevant facts. Whether a court has Jurisdiction to try/ entertain a case will, at least in part, depend upon the facts of the case. Hence, instead of rushing to the higher Court against the summoning order, the concerned person should approach G the Trial court with a suitable application for this purpose and the Trial court should after hearing both the sides and recording evidence, if necessary, decide the question of jurisdiction before proceeding further with the case.

¶33

For the reason stated herein above, the impugned H

¶34

KRISHNA KUMAR VARIAR v. SHARE SHOPPE 1155

¶35

judgment and order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant, if so advised, may approach the Trial Court with a suitable application in this connection and, if such an application is filed, the Trial Court shall after hearing both the sides and after recording evidence on the question on jurisdiction, shall decide the question of jurisdiction before further proceeding with -the Trial.

R.P.

Appeal allowed.

A

B

Krishna Kumar Variar v. Share Shoppe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kumar Variar v. Share Shoppe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India & Anr. versus C.S. Sidhu

Mukesh Kishanpuria versus State of West Bengal

Rabindra Nath Singh versus Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr.

Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav versus State of Bihar Thr. CBI