MARKANDEY KATJU, A.K.PATNAIK
Krishna Kumar Variar – Appellant
Versus
Share Shoppe – Respondent
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
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.