Disposed

K. Jayarajan v. v. Hemanth

Telangana HC2 Apr 2012CRLP/13162/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings for IPC offences 342 and 326, holding that quashing is not the remedy when no part of the cause of action arose within the local jurisdiction of the citing court.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition disposed giving liberty to the 1st respondent to take return of the complaint and file before the Court having jurisdiction.

K. Jayarajan Vs v. Hemanth — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.13162 OF 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A1 and A2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.385 of 2010 on the file of the IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chittoor on the ground that no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Chittoor District.

¶5

2. Heard.

¶6

3. It is not in dispute before this Court that offences under Sections 342 and 326 I.P.C. are alleged against the petitioners. It is an admitted fact that insofar as the offences under Sections 342 and 326 I.P.C. are concerned, no offence has been taken place within the jurisdiction of Chittoor District. No part of cause of action arose for the prosecution of the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 342 and 326 I.P.C. at Chittoor District. Hence, question of quashing the proceedings does not arise.

¶7

4. However, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision reported in Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal

¶8

and others^[1] , wherein it is held at para No.9 as under:

¶9

“ It is an erroneous view that the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence must necessarily have territorial jurisdiction to try the case as well. Chapter XIII of the Code relates to jurisdiction of the criminal courts “in enquiries and trials.” That chapter contains provisions regarding the place where the enquiry and trial are to take place. Section 177 says that “every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.” But S.179 says that when an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the place of enquiry and trial can as well be in a Court “within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.” It cannot be overlooked that the said provisions do not trammel the powers of any Court to take cognizance of the offence. Power of the Court to take cognizance of the offence is laid in S.190 of the

¶10

Code. Sub-sections (1) & (2) read thus:

¶11

“(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-sec. (2), may take cognizance of any offence-

¶12

(a) Upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;

¶13

(b) Upon a police report of such facts;

¶14

(c) Upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.

¶15

(ii) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-sec. (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.”

¶16

Under Section 177 Cr.P.C., every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Therefore, the offences in this case have not been committed within the local jurisdiction of Chittoor Magistrate Court. No judgment rendered by any Court can be read so as to nullify a statutory provision.

¶17

5. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the 1^st respondent to take return of the complaint and file before the Court having jurisdiction.

¶18

6. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand dismissed.

¶19

__________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶20

Date: 02.04.2012 Hsd

¶21

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION No.13162 OF 2010

¶23

Dated: 02^nd April, 2012

¶24

Hsd

¶25

[1] 1999 CRL.L.J.4325

K. Jayarajan v. v. Hemanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Jayarajan v. v. Hemanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Mohan Vs Dr.T.Laxminarayana

N.Sudarshan Reddy, Vs Anand M.Shah

M/s. Dayal Corporation, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Madan Mohan Reddy Vs The State of A.P.

P.Vara Vara Rao, Vs The State of A.P.

Kura Devender , Amar, Vs sub- Inspector of Police Sircilla