Subhash vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, Judge

This is a petition for quashing, setting-aside judgement dated 5.5.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala, in Criminal Revision No. 15-1/2008, reversing order dated 12.5.2008, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jawali, in Criminal Case No. 49-1/08.

It has been stated that one Amar Singh reported to Police Station, Jawali on 5.4.2005 that petitioner and proforma respondents as a result of personation, cheating, forgery executed an agreement to sell as well as sale deed of his land situated in Rajasthan. The police registered FIR No. 55 dated 5.4.2005 at Police Station, Jawali under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. On completion of investigation, the police submitted the challan before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jawali.

It has been stated that Assistant Public Prosecutor filed an application on 4.4.2008 to decide the issue of jurisdiction. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jawali on 12.5.2008 allowed the application dated 4.4.2008 and held that court has no jurisdiction to try the case. The challan was ordered to be returned to Investigating Agency for further action in accordance with law. The order dated 12.5.2008 was assailed in revision and learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala on 5.5.2011 allowed Criminal Revision No. 15-1/2008 and order dated 12.5.2008 passed by learned trial court was set-aside, hence present petition against the judgement dated 5.5.2011.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that State had filed the application dated 4.4.2008 before the learned trial court disputing the jurisdiction of the court, but this is not factually correct. The application was filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor. The perusal of application dated 4.4.2008 indicates that Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted to the learned trial court to decide the question of jurisdiction before taking cognizance. In the present case, there is alleged agreement dated 31.7.2004 and the stamp papers of alleged agreement were purchased at Jawali and on those stamp papers Ikrarnama has been written and thereafter forged sale deed was executed. The purchasing of stamp papers for preparing Ikrarnama is a part of conspiracy for executing forged sale deed.

The sequence of allegations are that stamp papers were purchased, Ikrarnama was prepared and then forged sale deed was prepared. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that ultimate forgery of sale deed is not connected with earlier part of preparation of Ikrarnama and purchasing of stamp papers. The section 178 Cr.P.C., provides that where an offence is committed partly in local area and partly in another and where it consists of several acts done in different local areas then the place of inquiry or trial may be by the court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.

At the time of taking cognizance by the trial Magistrate what was required was whether any part of the offence was committed within the jurisdiction of Jawali court. The trial court has observed that from the perusal of record, it is evident that stamp papers of Rs.50/- were purchased from Lal Chad, Stamp Vendor at Jawali. The purchasing of stamp papers at Jawali is a part of transaction of preparation of agreement. There are allegations of conspiracy also. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has observed that trial court has jurisdiction to try the case and this view emerges from the material on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. There is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. The interim order dated 9.8.2011 is vacated and Cr.MP No. 563 of 2011 stands disposed of.

The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial court on 21.2.2012. The record be sent forthwith so as to reach the court below well before the date fixed.