Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1539 (JHR)

Anju Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2019-09-04

AMITAV K.GUPTA

body2019
ORDER : 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 17.07.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Daltonganj, whereby the complaint case no.1414 of 2017 has been dismissed. 2. It transpires from record that the notice was served upon O.P. Nos.2 and 3 but they have refused to receive the notice. Thereafter with a view to give an opportunity to O.P. Nos. 2 and 3, to file their appearance, the case was directed to be listed on 09.07.2019. On 09.07.2019 none appeared on behalf of O.Ps and with a view to give another chance to O.Ps., the matter was adjourned to 19.08.2019. Despite the opportunity given to the O.Ps., today also none has appeared, accordingly the revision is heard ex-parte. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the court below has committed manifest error in recording the finding that both the parties belong to the Ranchi. It had failed to consider the fact that the address of the complainant as mentioned in the complaint, the complaint is a resident of Daltonganj. It is submitted that the agreement was executed at Ranchi for selling the plot of land situated in the District of Ranchi. That evidence has been led that the O.Ps. had visited the house of the complainant at Daltonganj and giving her eight cheques. That the said cheques were presented by the petitioner for encashment in the bank, but it was dishonoured and the complainant had informed the O.Ps. where after thereto, the O.Ps. transferred Rs.1,73,000/-into the account of the complainant, but they refused to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.2,30,000/-. It is submitted that the complainant and the enquiry witnesses have categorically stated that the O.Ps had come to the house of the complainant at Daltonganj and handed over the eight cheques. This demonstrate that the part of the transaction had taken place at Daltonganj. Therefore the court below has erred in law in dismissing the complaint by recording the finding that the entire incident took place at Ranchi and the parties are resident of Ranchi, therefore the offence did not take place within the jurisdiction of Daltonganj. 4. Learned APP has not controverted the submission. 5. Heard. Therefore the court below has erred in law in dismissing the complaint by recording the finding that the entire incident took place at Ranchi and the parties are resident of Ranchi, therefore the offence did not take place within the jurisdiction of Daltonganj. 4. Learned APP has not controverted the submission. 5. Heard. In this context, it will be relevant to refer to the provisions of Section 178 of Cr.P.C which reads as under; Place of inquiry or trial.-(a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Plain reading of the clause (d) A of Section 178 Cr.P.C it is evident that when the offence consists of several acts done in different local areas then it can be inquired into and tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Section 181 Cr.P.C. is also an exception to Section 177 Cr.P.C. According to Section 181 (4), any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person. This makes it abundantly clear that it is not necessary that an offence should be tried only where it is committed and the Code has prescribed exceptions to the general rule. The courts are empowered to try the cases depending on the nature of the offence and the fact and circumstances of the case. The question of jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and facts. 6. It is evident that the complainant has stated that she is a resident of Daltonganj and her address at Daltonganj is mentioned in the complaint. The question of jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and facts. 6. It is evident that the complainant has stated that she is a resident of Daltonganj and her address at Daltonganj is mentioned in the complaint. Perusal of the S.A, of the complainant and the statement of the enquiry witnesses discloses that the accused persons had come to Daltonganj and handed over the eight cheques to the complainant. The cheques had bounced and the complainant had informed the O.Ps., whereafter they had transferred Rs.1,73,000/-into the account of the complainant. However they had refused to pay the outstanding the amount. The sequence of events as narrated in the complaint and the statement of witnesses shows that part of the transaction took place at Daltonganj. The complaint does indicate that a part of cause of action arose in Daltonganj, accordingly the provision of Section 181 (4) Cr.P.C is attracted. The observation of the court below that both the parties are belong to Ranchi is prima facie erroneous for the simple reason that the complainant has made a categorical statement that she is a resident of Daltonganj. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court the finding of the court below is not in consonance to the evidence on record therefore, the court below has erred in passing the impugned order dated 17.07.2018. 8. The Court below is directed to conduct further enquiry and pass necessary order on basis of the evidence on record in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid direction the order dated 17.07.2018 is, hereby, set aside and the remitted to the court below. It is made clear that the court below shall pass necessary orders on merit, without being influenced by any observation or discussion made, hereinabove.