Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

S N Thakur (Entrepreneur)     18 June 2010

I have three fundamental questions related to Jurisdiction

 A criminal case of cognizable offense has been filed by a police station “A” u/s 420, 406 and some other sections of IPC where NEITHER the accused NOR the complainant reside within the jurisdiction of said police station “A”. The complaint has been forwarded to the court of ACJM under which the said police station “A” falls. The place of occurrence, available from the content of the complaint, appears to be bouncing of two cheque in a bank account of the complainant where the bank falls within the jurisdiction of the same said police station “A”. Long ago, the complainant used to live in the locality where the said bank is situated but NOT when the bouncing of said cheque happened. Meanwhile more than 9 months has passed by and the case is still open in the said court.


The summery of the concerned complaint is, on the basis of verbal understanding certain financial investment has been made by the complainant to the accused by cheque for a business venture on condition (verbal too) that the period of the said investment would be one year and during this period the said complainant would enjoy certain percentage from the return of the business but after completion of the said period said investment needs to be refunded by the accused to the complainant but even after passing of said one year period the accused did not refund the invested amount to the complainant, meanwhile the complainant, by showing fear, forcefully recovered some money in cash (no detailed given) from the accused which the complainant preferred to term as interest though there was no specific understanding, either verbally or written, that the said investment was actually a loan therefore subjected to interest rather the complainant specifically mentioned that the condition was sharing of certain percentage from the return of the business in question. On a later date, the complainant also taken two undated cheque from the accused for future adjustment. The complainant also raised question about the existence of said business as false even though the complainant admittedly taken some (undeclared) amount of money from the accused, installment of which lasted for about 2-3 years but he never questioned the existence of the business earlier. The question is also unanswered whether the business in question is/was a co-shared business.

The statement of the accused is not mentioned here since he did not get the opportunity to tell his version till date as the trial did not start yet.

However, as it appeared from the reflection of the said complaint that since the complainant holds a bank account in a bank that falls within the jurisdiction of said police station “A”, so he probably preferred to file the instant case within the local limit of said police station “A”, where his bank also situated. It appears to me to mention as relevant that the receiving of said cash by the complainant can not be the cause of action so that a case of this nature can be filed with a police station withing whose jurisdiction neither the accused or the complainant reside.

But presentment of cheque and corresponding bouncing of the same in the account of his said bank may be a cause of action for the complainant to file a case against the accused with the police station where his bank also situated. If this is the case then a question may rise whether such bouncing of cheque attracts penal provision under section 420, 408 IPC? It is necessary to mention that the complainant admittedly received some money from the accused from the return of said business that lasted about 2-3 years. Is not such bouncing of cheque appropriately falls under the prevailing NI Act ?

 

So I raise some of my “fundamental questions” here as following .

 

  1. How Jurisdiction of a police station is decided in a criminal case (cognizable offense) and under which applicable law?

  2. How place of occurrence and cause of action is decided to establish proper jurisdiction of a PS?

  3. Where and how to raise the issue if it is found that a police station did not consider its proper jurisdiction under applicable law about a criminal case filed by them against an accused?



Learning

 5 Replies

Legal Fighter (Advocate)     18 June 2010

1. Jurisdiction of criminal case is decided based on occurance of the crime. It is mentioned u/s 177, 178 and 179 of CrPC. For some special cases, jurisdiction is governed by 181 CrPC.

2. The facts which make the cause of action for the alleged offence decide the place of occurance.

3. Challenge it in high court either under Writ (Article 226) or 482 CrPC.

1 Like

S N Thakur (Entrepreneur)     18 June 2010

I thank you Legal Fighter! ... For the above.

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     19 June 2010

mr legal fighter absolutely correct..

ans to Q3, you may go to hc but before that, go to cjm or the mazistrate under whom the said ps comes.

1 Like

sanjay kumar (BE/ LLM in Corporate Laws)     19 June 2010

In your case, the crime is "bouncing of the cheque". Where did the cheque bounce?? At the Bank. So the place of occurence of the crime is the place where the Bank is situated.

S N Thakur (Entrepreneur)     19 June 2010

Attn. Mr. sanjay kumar

The alleged crime of "bouncing of the cheque" appropriately tried under section 138 of prevailing N.I. Act but section 138 of N.I. Act was not invoked in the instant case and such offence of "bouncing of the cheque” is also Non-Cognizable offence, however, in the instant case cognizable offence has been alleged to be done accordingly section 420, 406 of the IPC has been invoked by the PS concerned. Where Section 181(4) CrPc states, "any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person."

Therefore, if section 406/420 of the IPC need to be invoked then, according to Section 181(4) CrPc such offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person.
Where in the instant case NEITHER the alleged offence of criminal misappropriation was committed local jurisdiction of the said police station “A”  NOR any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person falls within the jurisdiction of the said police station “A”. Rather in the instant case, alleged offence was committed within the local jurisdiction of the concerned police station "X" where the accused reside and that is definitely NOT the local jurisdiction of said police station “A”


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register