The High Court ruled that allegations of cheating arose in Delhi, not Shimla, thus the Shimla Courts lacked jurisdiction under Section 181(4) of the CrPC.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present petitions are directed against the order dated 28.5.2015, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla (learned Revisional Court), vide which the order passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Shimla (learned Trial Court) was upheld and the revision preferred by the petitioner (accused before learned Trial Court) were dismissed. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner in which they are arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the informant was one of the Directors of M/s Umak Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. M/s Umesh Phalpher and Harmeet Ghai contacted the informant regarding the sale of land measuring 70 bighas adjoining Hotel Shillon Resorts, Shimla. The informant entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU)/Agreement with M/s U.G. Hotels, Mr. Umesh Phalpher and Harmeet Ghai for the purchase of Hotel Shillon Resorts by way of transfer of equity of the company on 27.4.2006. Mr. Harmeet Ghai assured that the owners of the land measuring 70 bighas adjoining Shillon Resorts would also sell their land to the informant. The agreements were valid for 90 days and were extended by another 60 days on 24.7.2006. The agreements were terminated on 24.9.2006. Mr Harmeet Ghai and Umesh Phalpher introduced the informant to Laiq Ram. The company entered into an MOU/agreement on 28.12.2006 regarding the purchase of the land measuring 70 bighas with Mr Laiq Ram, who claimed himself to be the General Power of Attorney of the owners of the land. The sale price was fixed and a cheque of Rs.100.00 lacs was issued in favour of Laiq Ram which was encashed by him. The original Power of Attorney was not given to the Company despite demands. Laiq Ram could not be found after the encashment of the cheque. The company found that the Power of Attorney stated to be executed in favour of Laiq Ram was forged and the owners never authorized him to enter into any agreement/MOU with the Company. Some of the executants had expired. Laiq Ram misappropriated the money and transferred it to Harmeet Ghai and Umesh Phalpher. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The statements of the owners were recorded and they said that they had never executed any Power of Attorney in favour of Laiq Ram. General Power of Attorney was stated to be attested by Surinder Kumar Notary Public, who stated that he had not attested any Power of Attorney. The cheque of Rs.1.00 Crore was encashed by Laiq Ram out of which Rs.90.00 lacs were transferred to Kamaljeet Kaur wife of Harmeet Ghai and the sum of Rs.9,50,000/- was transferred to the account of Umesh Phalpher. Hence, the police filed a charge sheet before the Court.

3. The accused filed an application under Section 177 of Cr.P.C. asserting that the documents were not executed within the jurisdiction of Courts at Shimla. The Court has no jurisdiction to try the case as no part of the cause of action had occurred with the territorial jurisdiction of Courts at Shimla.

4. The learned Trial Court held that the property, about which the agreement/MOU was executed, is located within the jurisdiction of the Court at Shimla, hence, the Court has jurisdiction under Section 181(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

5. Being aggrieved from the order, the accused filed revisions which were decided by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla (learned Revisional Court). Learned Revisional Court held that the land regarding which the General Power of Attorney was executed is located within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court. The property is to be accounted for at Shillon Bag and the Court has jurisdiction in view of Section