Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

This Judgment has been overruled by : Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another, AIR 2013 SC 181 : (2012) 10 SCALE 299 : (2012) 10 SCC 741 : (2012) AIRSCW 5692

Kant Tripathi, J.—Heard Sri Dileep Kumar for the applicants and Sri S.P. Srivastava, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the respondent no. 1 and perused the record. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the entire cause of action arose at Faridabad, Haryana and no part of cause of action arose within the territorial limits of the courts at Allahabad. Therefore, the cognizance of the offences by the concerned Magistrate at Allahabad was bad for want of jurisdiction.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2, on the other hand, submitted that a part of cause of action arose even at Allahabad, therefore, the Allahabad Courts had territorial jurisdiction.

The question of territorial jurisdiction cannot be properly decided by this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for want of adequate facts. It is, therefore, made open to the applicants to move an appropriate application before the Trial Court in regard to the question of territorial jurisdiction and if any such application is moved, the same may be considered and disposed of in accordance with law before holding any further proceedings in the case.

In view of the above, it is directed that the applicants may move an application before the Trial Court for dropping the proceedings on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. If any such application is moved, the same shall be considered and disposed of before holding any further proceedings in the case.

Till the disposal of the aforesaid application, no coercive process shall be issued and executed against the applicants.

However, it is further made clear that the learned Trial Court will try to dispose of the application so moved by the applicants within a period of two months from the date of moving the application.

With the aforesaid observations, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of. Interim order, if any, granted earlier is vacated.