Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
PRABHAT KUMAR JHA, J.
(12.3.2021)
Cri. Misc. Nos. 19374 of 2016, 42776 of 2013 with 37087 of 2017
Maharaj Kumar Man Vijay Singh
@ Manvijai Singh (in 19374, 37087)
Shri Bharat Sher Singh Kalsia
(in 42776) : Petitioners
Vs..
State of Bihar & Anr. : Opp. Parties
(in all)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 177, 178, 179 & 180 – Place of enqiry and trial – Section 177 Cr. P.C. says that every offence shall be tried within whose local juridiction it was committed – the expression local jurisdiction, as defined in Section 2(j) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to a Court or Magistrate, means the local area within which the Court or Magistrate may exercise all or any of its or his powers under this Code, but in case of uncertainty about the place in which, among the several local areas, an offence was committed, the Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas may inquire into or try such an offence – in the present case, the power of Attorney was executed in the district of Buxar and was duly notarized at Buxar, therefore, the first cause of action of authorization to the agent for management, maintenance, execution of the deeds, looking after the properties, rendition of accounts sale and to look after the litigation and the property is at Buxar and the subsequent actions and acts are done by the agent at Dehradun – in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, issue of jurisdiction of a Court to try an offence or offender as well as the issue of territorial jurisdiction depends upon the facts established thorugh evidence and the same has to be decided keeping in view of the Rules ennuciated in Sections 177 to 184 of the Code – the learned Add. Sessions Judge has only relied upon provision of section 177 Cr.P.C. and completely overlooked with regard to the offences of different natures committed in different localities and the acts which itself is an offence and the consequence ensued in other local areas and illegally jumped to the conclusion the Court of CJM has got no territorial jurisdiction – the Addl. Sessions Judge committed jurisditional error as well as material irregularity – impugned orders passed in Cr. Revision No. 57 of 2015 & Cr. Revision No. 44 of 2016 are not sustainable. (Paras 12 to 16).
Criminal Trial – Case alleged to be of a civil nature – If an act gives rise to a civil action as well as constitute a criminal offence the person was wronged can sue that person by filing suit and also institute criminal case – pursuing the civil litigation does not preclude that person to prosecute the wrong does in criminal courts – Cr. Misc. 42776/2013 dimissed – Cr. Misc. 19374/16 & Cr. Misc. 37087/17 allowed. (Para 14).
AIR 2020 SC 4633 – Referred.
ORDER
Cr. Misc. No.19374 of 2016 is filed against the order dated 16.02.2016, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Buxar in Criminal Revision No.57 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order taking cognizance dated 18.11.2014, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar in Dumraon P.S. Case No.87 of 2011, G.R. No.515 of 2011.
2. The same informant of Dumraon P.S. Case No.87 of 2011 filed Cr. Misc. No.37087 of 2017, against the order dated 04.03.2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Buxar in Criminal Revision No.44 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Buxar set aside the order dated 18.11.2014 taking cognizance of offences in Dumraon P.S. Case No.87 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No.515 of 2011.
3. Shri Bharat Sher Singh Kalsia filed Cr. Misc. No.42776 of 2013 for quashing the FIR of Dumraon P.S. Case No.87 of 2011, registered on 19.03.2011, under Sections 467, 468, 469 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the police of Buxar has got no territorial jurisdiction to institute and investigate the case and the police is under legal obligation to transfer the written statement given by the informant Maharaj Kumar Man Vijay Singh to Uttarakhand police for drawing FIR.
4. During the pendency of Cr. Misc. No.42776 of 2013, the petitioner filed I.A. No.1261 of 2017 for amendment of prayer and for quashing the order dated 18.11.2014, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar in Dumraon P.S. Case No.87 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No.515 of 2011, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, all the aforesaid three cases are heard together as the order taking cognizance dated 18.11.2014 in Dumraon P.S. Case No.87 of 2011, passed in two Criminal Revision petitions being Criminal Revision No.57 of 2015 and Criminal Revision No.44 of 2016, setting aside the order taking cognizance dated 18.11.2014 in Dumraon P.S. Case No.87 of 2011 are assailed in these criminal miscellaneous petitions.
5. The facts relevant for disposal of these cases are that the informant Maharaj Kumar Man Vijay Singh @ Manvijay Singh gave written statement before the S.H.O. of Dumraon P.S. on the basis of which Dumraon P.S. Case No.87 of 2011 was registered. The informant alleged that Rajkumar Karan Vijay Singh, Son of Group Captain Late Ranvijay Singh sold a property belonging to five persons of the informant family including the informant. The informant and his family members had earlier given Power of Attorney to Karan Vijay Singh. The informant and others are owners of the property bearing Khesra Nos.459N, 472, 474, 475, 476 and 478 and Khesra No.459M+, 477[k, 478x and 482, situated in village Karbari Grant, Tehsil Vikash Nagar, Pargana- Pachhwain, District Dehradun. The informant and his brother, Kumar Chandra Vijay Singh, both sons of Maharaja Kamal Singh, Smt. Sangeeta Kumari, Rani Indumati, R.B. Singh, the Bua, father, sisters and aunt of the informant executed a Power of Attorney on 12.04.1994 for management and maintenance of their property. The principal of Power of Attorney also stated that Power of Attorney holder shall sell, pursue the litigation, file the plaint after obtaining signature of the principal of the Power of Attorney. Karan Vijay Singh, the Power of Attorney holder, sold some portion of property of the informant and others to Shri Bharat Sher Singh Kalsia, the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No.42776 of 2013 and, on such, the informant sent legal notice to Power of Attorney holder asking him to give the details of the sale made in conspiracy with Shri Bharat Sher Singh Kalsia and a notice was also given to revoke the Power of Attorney but the agent did not give any information to the informant and others who had executed the Power of Attorney and, on such, the informant filed the case at Dumraon
The court ruled that non-delivery of goods at the complainant's address constitutes an offence under IPC, allowing the trial to proceed despite claims of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
In an appropriate case, protection is to be accorded against unwanted criminal prosecution and from prospect of unnecessary trial.
The territorial jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is determined by the place where the offense was committed. However, Section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows for trial in a co....
Point of Law : It is a settled legal proposition that while considering case for quashing of criminal proceedings Court should not “kill a still born child” and appropriate prosecution should not be ....
The Court emphasized that criminal proceedings should not be quashed at the initial stage and highlighted the need for mediation in family disputes.
Cheating and forgery – A bonafide criminal prosecution cannot be quashed at threshold.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
