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
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.