Case Note & Summary
The petitioners challenged the summons issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Indore under Sections 420 or 406 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on a complaint filed by respondent No.2. The challenge was two-fold: first, that the Magistrate at Indore had no territorial jurisdiction as no cause of action arose there; second, that the complaint did not disclose any offence under the said sections. The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court decision in Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC 2966, arguing that the documents produced with the complaint showed no transaction between the parties within Indore's jurisdiction. The court, after hearing the parties, found merit in the petitioners' contentions. It held that the Magistrate at Indore lacked territorial jurisdiction because no part of the cause of action arose within its limits. Additionally, the complaint failed to disclose any offence under Sections 420 or 406 IPC as there was no evidence of any transaction between the petitioner and respondent No.2. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the summons, and set aside the proceedings.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Territorial Jurisdiction - Cause of Action - Section 177 CrPC - The court held that the Magistrate at Indore lacked jurisdiction as no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial limits, relying on the principle that the place of transaction and receipt of money determines jurisdiction (Paras 1-2).
B) Indian Penal Code - Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust - Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC - Non-Disclosure of Offence - The complaint and documents did not disclose any transaction between the petitioner and respondent No.2, and therefore no offence under Sections 420 or 406 IPC was made out (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Indore had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and whether the complaint disclosed any offence under Sections 420 or 406 read with Section 120-B IPC.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed the summons issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Indore, and set aside the proceedings.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction
- Cause of action
- Non-disclosure of offence
- Section 420 IPC
- Section 406 IPC
- Section 120-B IPC
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (03) 69
Criminal Writ Petition No.896 of 2004
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, P.V. Kakade
Shri A.M. Saraogi for the Petitioner, Shri D.S. Mhaispurkar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1, Shri S.V. Marwadi for Respondent No.2
Mr. Manish Mehta, Mr. Ashish Mehta, Mr. Vinod Jaiswal, Mr. Sunil Koregaonkar, M/s. Free India Assurances Services Ltd.
The State of Maharashtra, Smt. Meena Sharma
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging summons issued by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore under Sections 420/406 read with 120-B IPC.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the summons and setting aside the proceedings on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction and non-disclosure of offence.
Filing Reason
The petitioners contended that the Magistrate at Indore had no jurisdiction as no cause of action arose there, and the complaint did not disclose any offence.
Issues
Whether the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Indore had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Whether the complaint disclosed any offence under Sections 420 or 406 read with Section 120-B IPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Indore court, relying on Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra.
Petitioners argued that the complaint and documents did not disclose any transaction between the parties to constitute an offence under Sections 420 or 406 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi
A court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain a complaint if no part of the cause of action arises within its limits. Additionally, a complaint that does not disclose any transaction between the parties fails to make out an offence under Sections 420 or 406 IPC.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner challenges the summons issued under Section 420 or 406 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate at Indore.
The challenge to the summons issued by the learned Magistrate on the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 is two-fold. Firstly, that the Court of the Magistrate at Indore has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no cause of action for entertaining such complaint arose at Indore, and secondly, that the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 does not disclose any offence of the nature punishable under either Section 420 or Section 406 of the IPC under which the summons has been issued.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the summons issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Indore. The court heard the parties and allowed the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 420, 406, 120-B
