Supreme Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Jurisdiction in Criminal Proceedings — Interpretation of Section 188 of CrPC Clarified. The court clarified that the responsibility to find the accused lies with the court, allowing jurisdiction where the accused is found in India, irrespective of the place of commission of the offence.

  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a complaint filed by a Dubai-based bank against the petitioner, alleging fraud and default on loan obligations. The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Special Judicial Magistrate at Ghaziabad, arguing that no part of the cause of action occurred within that jurisdiction. The High Court rejected this contention, leading to the present appeal. The petitioner contended that the interpretation of Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was erroneous, asserting that jurisdiction should be based on where the accused is likely to be found, not merely where the complaint is filed. The complainant bank argued that the court's jurisdiction is determined by where the accused may be found, emphasizing that the responsibility to find the accused lies with the court. The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of the Code, particularly Chapter XIII, which outlines jurisdictional principles. It clarified that the expression 'at which he may be found' in Section 188 means the place where the accused appears, whether voluntarily or through police action. The court emphasized the victim's convenience in filing complaints and dismissed the petition, affirming that the jurisdiction is valid where the accused is found, irrespective of the place of the offence's commission.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Jurisdiction - Interpretation of Section 188 - Responsibility to find accused - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 188 - The court held that the responsibility to find the accused lies with the court, not the complainant or police, allowing jurisdiction where the accused is found in India, irrespective of the place of commission of the offence (Paras 1-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Interpretation of the expression 'at which he may be found' under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, affirming the High Court's ruling that the Special Judicial Magistrate at Ghaziabad had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Law Points

  • Jurisdiction
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Section 188 interpretation
  • Offences committed outside India
  • Responsibility to find accused
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2004 LawText (SC) (11) 59

Special Leave Petition (crl.) 99 of 2004

2004-11-25

Y.K. Sabharwal, D.M. Dharmadhikari

Vijay Kotwal, Vinod A. Bobde

Om Hemrajani

State of U.P. & Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal complaint regarding fraud and default on loan obligations.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of the complaint and the order of the Magistrate.

Filing Reason

Complaint filed by a Dubai-based bank alleging fraud and default.

Previous Decisions

High Court rejected the petitioner's contention regarding lack of jurisdiction.

Issues

Interpretation of Section 188 Jurisdiction of courts in criminal matters

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that jurisdiction should be based on where the accused is likely to be found. Respondent contended that the court has jurisdiction where the accused may be found, irrespective of the place of commission.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the responsibility to find the accused lies with the court, allowing jurisdiction where the accused is found in India, irrespective of the place of commission of the offence.

Judgment Excerpts

The sole question is about the interpretation of the expression ’at which he may be found’ in the aforesaid section. The finding of the accused has to be by the court where accused appears.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court challenging the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and issuing non-bailable warrants.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 188
  • Indian Penal Code: Sections 415, 417, 418, 420, 120-B
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Legislation on Seniority in Haryana Engineering Services — Addresses Inequities in Direct Recruitment and Promotion.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows FCI Appeal in Property Tax Exemption Case — Holds That Occupier of Central Government Property Is Not Liable Under Article 285(1) When Ownership Vests in Union. Bombay High Court Erred in Relying on Section 146 of MMC Act Witho...