SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 392

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK
Krishna Kumar Variar
Versus
Share Shoppe
Criminal Appeal Nos. 961 and 962 of 2010
Decided on : 03-05-2010

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:Vineet Bhagat, K.G. Bhagat, Mrs. Manju Bhagat, Monohar Singh Bakshi, Varun Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondent:Sonal Jain, Gautam Laha, Pravir Kumar Jain, Advocates.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 177 – Appellant, an accused u/s 415/420 IPC issued summons by Delhi Court – Appellant approaching High Court for setting aside the same on ground of jurisdiction – Contending that Bombay court would have jurisdiction – Instead of rushing to High Court u/s 482 Cr.PC, appellant should have approached the trial court with full facts. (Para 5)

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant is an accused under Sections 415/420 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.

       Finding of the Court:

       Instead of rushing to High Court u/s 482 Cr.PC, appellant should have approached the trial court with full facts.

       Result:

       Appeal allowed.

Judgment :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal has been filed against the impugned 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.

4. The appellant herein is an accused under Sections 415/420 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 us in this appeal.

5. 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 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. Hence, instead of rushing to the higher Court against the summoning order, the concerned person should approach 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.

6. For the reasons stated herein above, the impugned 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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top