Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anu Malhotra, J.
Suman Solanki And Other - Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi) & Anr. - Respondents
Crl.M.C. No. 2386 of 2020 and Crl.M.C. No. 2412 of 2020 and Crl.M.A. No. 17028 of 2020
Decided On : 04-10-2021
JURISDICTION - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 406/420/120B - The court discussed the jurisdictional issue arising from the FIR and the accused company's office location, holding that both the North-West and North Districts had jurisdiction to hear the bail applications. The court emphasized that the cause of action arose in both districts, and thus both courts had jurisdiction. The court also cited Section 462 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, stating that there was no failure of justice due to the proceedings taking place in the wrong local area.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved complaints against M/s Prabhu Shanti Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. and its directors for alleged fraud and misappropriation of funds related to a residential project. The complainants contended that the accused company had made false representations and failed to deliver the promised flats, resulting in a loss of over Rs.155 crores to the home buyers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that both the North-West and North Districts had jurisdiction to hear the bail applications due to the cause of action arising in both areas. The court also noted that there was no failure of justice due to the proceedings taking place in the wrong local area.
Issues: The main issue was the jurisdiction of the courts to hear the bail applications in relation to the FIR, given the location of the accused company's office and the place of occurrence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the cause of action arising in both the North-West and North Districts conferred jurisdiction on both courts to hear the bail applications. The court also emphasized that there was no failure of justice due to the proceedings taking place in the wrong local area.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondent to file a bail application before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over the North District, and extended the interim restraint against arrest until a specified date for both petitioners.
JUDGMENT
Anu Malhotra, J. - The petitioners of the two petitions, Crl.M.C. No. 2386/2020 and 2412/2020 have assailed the order dated 2.12.2020 of the learned Link Judge/Additional Sessions Judge (Electricity) (North-West), Rohini Courts, Delhi, whereby in relation to the FIR No. 59/2019, Police Station EOW registered under Sections 406/420/ 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in relation to the Bail Appln. No. 3959/2020 filed by Ram Niwas Lather, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that as a part of the cause of action arose in the North as well as the North-West District, both the Courts had jurisdiction to decide the applications filed by them in accordance with law and thus held that the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (NW), Rohini, had jurisdiction to hear the Bail Appln. No. 3959/2020 filed in relation to FIR No. 59/2019, Police Station EOW of the applicant Ram Niwas Lather arrayed as the respondent no.2 to Crl.M.C No. 2386/2020.
2. The submissions that had been made before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Electricity) North-West, on behalf of the complainant who is the petitioner of Crl.M.C. No. 2386/2020, presently, under consideration before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, were to the effect that the jurisdiction to hear the bail application lay with the North District and not the North-West District. Vide the impugned order dated 2.12.2020, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Electricity) (North-West) had fixed the hearing of the bail application on merits for the date 4.12.2020. In as much as, vide order dated 4.12.2020 in Crl.M.C. No. 2386/2020, presently under consideration, the operation of the impugned order dated 2.12.2020, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Electricity) North-West, Rohini Courts, in relation to Bail Appln. No. 3959/2020 had been stayed, in the circumstances, as the hearing of the anticipatory bail application had thus been consequently stayed it was directed that till the next date of hearing, the applicant of the Bail Appln. No. 3959/2020 arrayed as respondent No.2 to the Crl.M.C. No. 2386/2020 be not arrested by the Investigating Agency subject to his not leaving the country. The said interim order is presently in existence.
3. The petitioner of Crl.M.C. No. 2386/2020, i.e., the complainant in relation to the case FIR No. 59/2019, Police Station EOW, apart from seeking the setting aside of the order dated 2.12.2020 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Electricity) North-West, Rohini Courts on the grounds that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had exceeded jurisdiction by the said order also prayed that the respondent no.2 be directed to file the bail application before the North District, Rohini Courts.
4. The petitioner of Crl.M.C. 2412/2020, Joginder Singh Lather, another co-accused in case FIR No. 59/2019, PS EOW, apart from seeking that the order dated 2.12.2020 of the learned ASJ (Electricity) North-West to the extent that it held that the Court of the North District, Rohini Courts too had jurisdiction to entertain the bail application be set aside, also sought the setting aside of the order dated 5.12.2020 in Bail Appln. No. 4030/2020 which bail application had been filed by the applicant thereof i.e., the petitioner herein, Joginder Singh Lather, the petitioner of Crl.M.C. No. 2412/2020, in as much as vide order dated 5.12.2020, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Electricity) North-West, Rohini Courts had observed that in view of the submissions that had been made before the Court that this Court had stayed the proceedings before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Electricity) North-West, thus no interim relief could be granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North-West on the application filed seeking the anticipatory bail.
5. The petitioner of Crl.M.C. No. 2412/2020, Joginder Singh Lather further sought that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Electricity) North-West be directed to decide the bail application of the appl
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cause of action determines the jurisdiction of the court to hear bail applications, and the absence of a failure of justice due to proceed....
As per Section 177 Cr.P.C., every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
Criminal jurisdiction is restricted to the area where the offence occurred, and parties cannot confer jurisdiction through a contract; thus, allegations of fraud in a lease agreement without evidence....
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.
The court emphasized that it would not hesitate to use its inherent powers to quash the FIR and restrain investigation in cases where the continuance of investigation would result in a miscarriage of....
Territorial jurisdiction of the court to entertain Writ Petitions challenging the FIR registered at New Delhi.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the resolutions passed by the Board of Directors were valid and specifically gave power to launch criminal action. The Court also followed the....
The jurisdiction to entertain winding up petitions can reside at Allahabad, despite any technical defects in filing, when no prejudice arises.
The main legal point established is that the allegations in the FIR warranted investigation, and the court rejected the petitioners' contentions regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction, the civil/....
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
