2010(1) Crimes 606 (Ker.)
KERALA HIGH COURT
V. Ramkumar, J.
Anilkumar & Ors. —Petitioners
versus
Sindhu & Anr. —Respondents
Cri. Rev. Petn. No. 480 of 2009
Decided on 7.4.2009

IMPORTANT POINT
The Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is not a separate class of Court but is only a Court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class.

Headnote:Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005—Section 27, 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 14, 192 and 41—Jurisdiction—Judicial Magistrate of First Class—Territorial jurisdiction—Application filed by wife under Section 12 of the Act claiming reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Act—Objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide the case—Whether Chief Judicial Magistrate is a Judicial Magistrate of the first class?—(Yes)—Court of CJM is not a separate class of Court but is only a Court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class—CJM has administrative control over all other Judicial Magistrates subordinate to him—Whether the CJM has judicial powers over the entire District?—(No)—Even if the area in which the offence was committed falls within the local limits of the area assigned by the CJM to some other Magistrate subordinate to him—CJM is not competent to take cognizance of the offence committed anywhere in the district—Jurisdiction of each Magistrate including that of the CJM is defined.

       Held: The Administrative powers of the CJM are general control and supervision over the work of the Judicial Magistrates subordinate to him (vide Section 12(3) (b) Cr. P.C.). It means that he has administrative control over all other Judicial Magistrates subordinate to him. Every Judicial Magistrate is subordinate to the CJM. Vide Sec, 15 (1) Cr.P.C.) The local jurisdiction of every Judicial Magistrate including and subordinate to the CJM is to be defined by the CJM and that exercise of defining the local jurisdiction shall be subject to the control of the High Court. (Vide Section 14 (1) Cr.P.C.) The distribution of business among such Judicial Magistrate subordinate to the CJM is to be made by the CJM by framing rules or by issuing special orders from time to time.(vide Section.15(2) Cr.P.C.). It is by virtue of the fact that the CJM is the Controlling Officer of the district that he is given the power to pass a sentence of imprisonment up to 7 years as provided under Section. 29 (1) Cr.P.C. It is for the same reason that the CJM is invested with the power under Section192 Cr.P.C. of making over cases to the Magistrate subordinate to him under Section 192 Cr.P.C. and also the power of withdrawal and transfer all cases under Section 410 Cr.P.C. Barring the above powers, the CJM has only those judicial powers which any other Judicial Magistrate has. Section, 12(3) (b) Cr. P.C. does not invest the CJM with judicial powers Section 192 Cr.P.C. gives the CJM the power of making over cases other Magistrate in the district. This power, however is not an administrative power because the said provision itself says that the power under said provision can be invoked by the CJM only after taking cognizance of the offence. Where a case is transferred by the CJM before taking cognizance of the offence, then such a transfer will only be an administrative action and not a transfer under Section192 Cr.P.C. (vide Gopal Das v. State of Assam, AIR 1961 SC986) : (1961(2) Cri. LJ 39) Section 410 Cr.P.C. is another provision which gives the CJM the power t withdraw cases. This provision has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the CJM the power in the matter of cognizance enquiry or trial of an offence. This special power is given to him by virtue of he being the person having general control or supervision over the work of the other Magistrate in the district, Merely because the CJM is invested with the power of making over cases of cases under Section 192 Cr.P.C. or withdrawing of cases under Section 410 Cr.P.C. it cannot be said that his local jurisdiction (judicial power) extends to the entire district. The aforementioned power are given to him only for the effective exercise of the general control and supervision over his subordinate Magistrates. (Para 9)

       Thus, the CJM, Thiruvananthapuram like any other CJM id only one among the Judicial Magistrates of the first class and since the High Court has, in exercise of its power of control under Section, 14(1) Cr.P.C. approved the local limits of the jurisdiction of the CJM, Thiruvananthapuram, the exercise of judicial powers by the CJM, Thiruvananthapuram is to be confined only to those local limits and not beyond. The extension of the jurisdiction and powers of every judicial Magistrate including the CJM throughout the district as provided under Section 14(2) Cr.P.C. is therefore, subjects to the definition of their local limits. Once their local jurisdiction is so defined, they can exercise their powers only within such local limits. (Para 11)

       It is an admitted fact that neither the applicant (Sindhu – the “aggrieved person”) nor any of the respondents to CMP 2066 of 2008 on the file of the CJM resides or carries on business or is employed within the local limits of either the Museum Police Station or the Valiyathura Police Station which are the only two Police Stations with in the local jurisdiction of the CJM Thiruvananthapuram. Likewise no part of the alleged cause of action arose within the local limits of the aforesaid two police stations Section 28 of the Act provides that all proceedings under Sections 12 and 18 to 23 and offences under Section 31 of the Act shall be governed by the provisions in the Cr. P.C. It therefore follows that the provisions in the Cr.P.C. relating to the enquiry of offences are applicable to the enquiries under the Act also. In other words , Chapter XII Cr.P.C. dealing with the jurisdiction of the criminal Courts with regard to enquiries and trials is applicable to the proceedings under the Act. If so the CJM has no jurisdiction to conduct any inquiry or pass or grant any protection or other order under the Act. The orders passed by the Courts below on the question of territorial jurisdiction are accordingly set aside and the CJM Thiruvananthapuram is directed to return the complaint for presentation before the proper Court having jurisdiction. (Para 14)

       Result: Revision allowed.