Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 13048
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
SIDDAPPA V KORE ALIAS SIDDARTH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P 3118 / 2025
Jurisdiction of courts requires that complaints be filed where the offence occurred; failure to do so invalidates proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 177 and 178 - Jurisdiction of Courts - Petitioners seek to quash proceedings for offences allegedly committed outside the jurisdiction of the filing police station - The complaint was lodged at a police station without jurisdiction, hence the proceedings were quashed. (Paras 3, 5)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that the place of inquiry and trial must be where the offence was committed, reiterating that a complaint filed outside this jurisdiction is invalid. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to quash proceedings initiated against them for alleged offences that occurred outside the jurisdiction of the police station where the complaint was filed.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the proceedings were illegal due to lack of jurisdiction and quashed them accordingly.
Issues: The main issue was whether the complaint was filed in the correct jurisdiction as per the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the concerned court, rendering the proceedings invalid.
Result: The petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are quashed.
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:
“WHEREFORE, it is pray that, this Hon’ble Court may be please to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.25433/2024 of Women Police Station Basavanagudi at Bengaluru, for the alleged offences U/s. 417, 420, 354, 354 A, 506, 509, 109, 34 of IPC. Now, pending before the 37th Addl. CJM, Court, Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru City, in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.2-complainant lodged the impugned complaint on 20.06.2023 before respondent No.1-Basavanagudi Police Station in relation to the incident that had allegedly taken placed in Vijayanagar, Chandra Layout, which was clearly beyond the territorial jurisdiction of respondent No.1 - Basavanagudi Police Station and the complaint ought to have been filed before the Chandra Layout Police Station, who had territorial jurisdiction in terms of Section 177 of Cr.P.C .
4. In the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another – AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 4286, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:
“Leave granted.
Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court whereby the appellants’ prayer for quashing proceedings in CC 3532 of 2001 on the file of the Court of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Saidapet, Chennai, by exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ’Code’) was rejected. Background facts sans unnecessary details are as follows :
Respondent no.2 as complainant filed complaint in the Court of the concerned magistrate alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ’IPC’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ( in short the ’Dowry Act’). The magistrate directed the police to investigate and after investigation charge-sheet was filed by the police. When the matter stood thus, the appellants filed an application under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court alleging that the concerned magistrate has no jurisdiction even to entertain the complaint even if the allegations contained therein are accepted in toto. According to them, no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court. The complaint itself disclosed that after15.4.1997, the respondent left Nagercoil and came to Chennai and was staying there. All the allegations which are per se without any basis took place according to the complainant at Nagercoil, and therefore, the Courts at Chennai did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. It was further submitted that earlier a complaint was lodged by the complainant before the concerned police officials having jurisdiction; but after inquiry no action was deemed necessary.
In response, learned counsel submitted that some of the offences were continuing offences. The appellant no.1 had initiated proceedings for judicial separation, the notice for which was received by her at Chennai and, therefore, the cause of action existed.
The High Court unfortunately did not consider rival stands and even did not record any finding on the question of law raised regarding lack of jurisdiction. It felt that legal parameters were to be considered after a thorough trial after due opportunity to the parties and, therefore, the factual points raised by parties were not to be adjudicated under Section 484 of the Code.
In support of the appeal Mr. T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, learned senior counsel, submitted that the approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous. A bare reading of the complaint would go to show that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court where the complaint was filed. Therefore, the entire proceedings had no foundation.
In response, learned counsel
