AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. S. Yadav, J.
The facts leading to this petition are that the present respondent filed a complaint under sections 120B, 406, 109 and 494, Indian Pedal Code against the present petitioner and seven other accused in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak.
After recording preliminary evidence, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, summoned the accused vide impugned order, for having committed offences under Sections 494 and 109, Indian Penal Code.
The contention of the present petitioner is that the said offences for the commission of which he has been summoned were admittedly committed in Muzaffarnagar (Uttar Pradesh) and, therefore, the Court at Rohtak and no jurisdiction to try him.
I am of the view that the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has force. Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows :
"Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed."
As the offence for the commission of which the petitioner has been summoned was committed in Muzaffarnagar, the Court at Rohtak had no jurisdiction to try the case.
Though in the complaint it was alleged that some other offences were committed at Rohtak but perhaps no evidence was led in respect of those offences and that is why the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not summon the accused in respect of those offences. Hence as the criminal court at Rohtak has no territorial jurisdiction to try the offences for which the petitioner had been summoned, the proceedings pending in the trial court are, consequently, quashed.
JUDGMENT accordingly.