Back
High Court Of Calcutta
S. P. TALUKDAR
SHEW KISHAN AGARWALLA - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
C. R. R. 1110 Of 2002
Decided On : 10/10/2002
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 177, 178 - JURISDICTION - FORGED DOCUMENT - TRIAL COURT JURISDICTION - FORGED DOCUMENT USED IN COURT - JURISDICTION CONFIRMED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in a criminal case involving allegations of forgery and use of a forged document. The complaint alleged that the petitioners had produced a forged deed of dissolution in a civil suit filed in the High Court of Calcutta. The petitioners argued that the alleged offenses were committed outside the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court and that the production of the document in court was not voluntary, thus not falling under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Metropolitan Magistrate Court had territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The court reasoned that the use of the allegedly forged document in the High Court of Calcutta, which is within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, brought the case within the purview of Section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows for trial in a court having jurisdiction over any of the areas where the offense was committed.
Issues: 1. Whether the Metropolitan Magistrate Court had territorial jurisdiction to try the case involving allegations of forgery and use of a forged document. 2. Whether the production of the allegedly forged document in court was voluntary, thus falling under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on Section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which empowers a court to exercise jurisdiction in cases where an offense is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or where it consists of several acts done in different local areas. The court found that the use of the allegedly forged document in the High Court of Calcutta, which is within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, brought the case within the purview of Section 178. 2. The court did not address the issue of whether the production of the allegedly forged document in court was voluntary, as it found that the Metropolitan Magistrate Court had territorial jurisdiction to try the case regardless of the voluntariness of the production.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioners' applications challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court and affirmed the impugned order dated 19-4-2002 passed by the learned 14th Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.
( 1 ) FOUR applications under Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been filed being numbered as CRR 1110 of 2002, CRR 1111 of 2002, CRR 1112 of 2002 and CRR 1114 of 2002.
( 2 ) IN all the said applications prayer has been made on behalf of the respective petitioners for quashing of proceeding in case No. 63 of 2000 (T. R. No. 33 of 2002) pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, at Calcutta and all orders passed therein including the order dated 19th April, 2002 whereby the petitioner's application for dismissal of the complaint for lack of Territorial jurisdiction was dismissed.
( 3 ) SIMILAR points of facts and laws being involved and as all the said applications are directed against the same impugned order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Calcutta, the said applications have been heard at a time.
( 4 ) GRIEVANCES of the petitioners may briefly be stated as follows :-
( 5 ) IN or about the year 1941, Mr. Ganga Bishan alias Haldiram started the firm known as Chand Mal Ganga Bishan also trading as Haldiram Bhujiawala at Bikaner. The constitution of the firm was changed from that of proprietorship to partnership from time to time. On 31/10/1969, the partners of the firm were Mr. Ganga Bishan, Mr. Mool Chand, Mr. Shiv Kishan and Smt. Kamla Devi trading as M/s. Chand Mal Ganga Bishan. Mr. Mool Chand is the son of Mr. Ganga Bishan and Mr. Shiv Kishan is the grandson of Mr. Ganga Bishan. Smt. Kamla Devi (wife of Rameshwar Lal) is the daughter-in-law of Mr. Ganga Bishan. On 16/11/1974, the said partnership firm was dissolved by a deed of dissolution. The terms of deed of dissolution dated 16/11/1974 were acted upon by the parties till the year 1991. The factum of dissolution of the firm, M/s. Chand Mal Ganga Bishan was admitted and established in Sales Tax Case bearing Writ Petition No. 2411/86 decided by the High Court at Rajasthan. In the year 1985, the Registrar of Trade Marks, New Delhi made changes in the Register of Trade Marks on the basis of deed of dissolution dated 16/11/1974. In the year 1991, an attempt was made by the legal heirs of mr. Rameshwar Lal to expand the use of the Trade Mark "haldiram" by opening a showroom at Delhi in breach of the terms of deed of dissolution dated 16-11-1974. Consequently, a suit for permanent injunction was filed by and on behalf of the petitioners before the District Judge, Delhi. An Ex. Parte order of interim injunction was passed in the said suit. It was subsequently transferred to the High Court of Delhi. The factum of execution of the deed of dissolution dated 16-11-1974 was admitted. The High Court of Delhi passed an order on 12/05/1999 granting an order of interim injunction in favour of the petitioners and the defendants therein were restrained from using the impugned mark during the pendency of the suit. An appeal had been preferred against the said order dated 12-5-1999 and it had been admitted by the Division Bench of High Court but there had been no order for staying of operation of the order dated 12-5-1999. On the other hand the legal heirs of Mr. Rameshwar Lal filed two suits in Calcutta, one before the High Court and the other before the City Civil Court. In the said proceeding execution of deed of dissolution dated 16-11-1974 was admitted. In the year 1991, a Rectification Petition was filed before the Registrar of Trade Marks seeking cancellation of registered Trade Mark No. 330375 which was alleged to have been registered in the names of Mr. Rameshwar Lal and Mr. Prabhu Shankar Agarwal. The said Rectification Petition was, however, dismissed by an order dated 23/04/1992 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. An appeal against the said order is pending before the High Court, Calcutta.
( 6 ) AFTER passing of the Order dated 12/05/1999 and a confirmation thereof by the Division Bench by Order dated 25/05/1999, Smt. Kamla Devi filed a Civil Suit No. 386 of 1999 before the High Court
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
