SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Gau) 232

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Songkhupchung Serto, J.
Budha Teron - Appellant
Versus
State Of Nagaland & Anr. - Respondent
Crl. Pet. 2/2018
Decided On : 18-03-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Manas Sarania Nenli Kez, for the Appellant; K K Wotsa P.P., N.K.Liukham, M. Kasar, Limatoshi, for the Respondent

The court emphasized the importance of complying with Cr.PC provisions, specifically section 202(1), before taking cognizance and issuing process in a criminal case.

Headnote:

JURISDICTION - Criminal Complaint - Section 177, 178 of Cr.PC - The court held that the cause of action for the complaint case did not wholly or entirely arise at Diphu but at Dimapur also, therefore, the Court of CJM at Dimapur does have jurisdiction to take cognizance and to try the case if he finds prima facie that the complaint is genuine and the facts and circumstances stated therein constitute any offence. However, the order dated 22/11/2017 of the CJM, Dimapur is liable to be quashed and set aside as the provision of section 202(1) has been overlooked and therefore, neither enquiry was conducted nor investigation was ordered and conducted.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant sought quashing of criminal proceedings pending against him before the learned CJM, Dimapur, alleging lack of jurisdiction and non-compliance with Cr.PC provisions.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the cause of action did not solely arise at Diphu, granting jurisdiction to the CJM at Dimapur. However, the court concluded that the order of the CJM taking cognizance and issuing process was liable to be quashed due to non-compliance with section 202(1) of Cr.PC.

Issues: Jurisdiction of the CJM at Dimapur, compliance with Cr.PC provisions, admissibility of documents under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the CJM at Dimapur had jurisdiction due to the cause of action not solely arising at Diphu. However, the order taking cognizance and issuing process was quashed due to non-compliance with section 202(1) of Cr.PC.

Final Decision: The order dated 22/11/2017 passed by the learned CJM, Dimapur taking cognizance of the complaint and issuing process was quashed and set aside. The record was sent back to the CJM, Dimapur to proceed afresh in compliance with the law and settled principles.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an application under section 482 Cr.PC , 1973 praying for quashing and setting aside the criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner before the learned CJM, Dimapur in Criminal Complaint Case No.25/2017. 2. Heard Mr. M. Sarania, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. K. Wotsa, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Nagaland and Mr. N.K. Luikham, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No.2.

2. The brief facts which led to the registration of the complaint case and leading to the passing of the impugned order dated 22/11/2017 and the filing of this application are as follows:-

3. On 22/11/2017, the learned CJM Dimapur received a complaint filed by the private respondent alleging that the applicant, on different dates, by signing acknowledgment receipts had taken a total sum of Rs.56,02,964/- with a promise that he would share the profits earned from different contract works under NLCPR projects which were to be undertaken but neither the amount taken from him were returned nor the profits earned from the contract works were ever shared with him. The learned CJM, Dimapur examined the complainant (private respondent herein) and thereafter took cognizance and issued summon to the applicant (accused in the complaint case). The order dated 22/11/2017 passed by the CJM Dimapur, reads as follows:-

'EXTRACT COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY SHRI AJONGBA IMCHEN, CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND IN CONNECTION WITH C.R.25/2017

Shri Hokugha K. Achumi @ H.K. Achumi ..Complainant. -versus- Er. Budha Teron Accused.

Dated:22/11/17

ORDER

Received a criminal complaint U/S 200 Cr.PC from Shri Hokugha K. Achumi against Er. Budha Teron R/O Ward,5 District Social Welfare, Diphu, Karbi Anglong, Assam through the learned Counsel Shri Hetoka, Advocate.

I have heard learned Counsel for the complainant, examined the statement of the complainant and its Annexures 1-5 and also peruse the complaint petition and on being satisfied cognizance taken and registered Criminal Complaint No.25/2017 against the accused Er. Budha Teron

Issue summon to the accused alongwith extract copy of this order and the complaint petition with Annexures.

The complainant shall take steps for process within 15 days.

Fix for appearance of the parties on 15/1/2017.

Sd/-

AJONGBA IMCHEN

CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE DIMAPUR::NAGALAND'

Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CJM reproduced herein above, the applicant is before this Court praying for quashing and setting aside of the same order and the complaint case itself.

4. Mr. M. Sarania, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per the allegation made in the complaint petition, the cause of action if any arose at Diphu and not at Dimapur therefore, the learned CJM Dimapur has no jurisdiction to admit and try the case. The learned counsel in support of his submission referred to all the acknowledgment receipts allegedly signed by the applicant for having received the amount stated above on different dates and the agreement dated 08/05/2015 allegedly signed by both the parties which according to him were apparently signed at Diphu. Thereafter, the learned counsel submitted also that as per section 177 of Cr.PC , it is the Court at Diphu who would have the jurisdiction to take cognizance and try the case and not the Court at Dimapur.

5. Mr. M. Sarania, learned counsel also submitted that the learned CJM, Dimapur while taking cognizance of the offence charged against the applicant (accused) did not follow the provisions of section 202 (1) of Cr.PC therefore, the order dated 22/11/2017 passed in violation of the provisions of that section is liable to be quashed and set aside. According to the learned counsel, before taking cognizance in a criminal proceeding, the Magistrate should enquire into the allegation or allegations made in the petition either by himself or direct the Police to conduct investigation if the accused is residing at a place b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top