Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 493 (JK)

Rajesh Madan Lal Anand v. Rakesh Madan Lal Anand

2020-09-21

PUNEET GUPTA

body2020
ORDER The petitioner has preferred petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C wherein he challenges the order impugned dated 23.07.2019, passed by the learned court of Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu. The Revision Petition was preferred before the said court against the order dated 25.05.2019, passed by the learned Municipal Magistrate, Jammu as the complaint filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed. 2. The petitioner herein preferred complaint against the respondent wherein he complained of the cheating allegedly committed by the respondent upon him. As per the case set up by the petitioner, the offences under various Sections of the Ranbir Panel Code came to be committed by the respondent, brother of the petitioner, and the communications which he received at Jammu and other reasons gave jurisdiction to the courts at Jammu to entertain the complaint. The learned magistrate vide order dated 25.05.2019 dismissed the complaint on the ground that the cause of action had not arisen within the jurisdiction of Jammu Courts and the Courts at Mumbai had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the petitioner herein as the cheque was issued to the petitioner at Mumbai and the documents also came to be executed at Mumbai. The revision petition preferred against the order of dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction by the trial court also resulted into dismissal on the grounds on which the complaint was dismissed by the trial court. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petition has also been styled as ‘Criminal Revision Petition’ which is otherwise not maintainable against the impugned order. It is argued that this Court cannot entertain the petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C even if considered to be filed under this provision as disputed questions of fact stand raised in the matter. Indeed, the learned counsel has also argued that the facts pleaded in the present petition also do not reveal, in any case, that the Courts at Jammu have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the petitioner herein. 4. The present petition though stated as ‘Revision Petition’ also in the caption in addition to the petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. shall not render the present petition as incompetent on that ground only. The petition is treated as having been filed under section 561-A Cr.P.C. 5. 4. The present petition though stated as ‘Revision Petition’ also in the caption in addition to the petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. shall not render the present petition as incompetent on that ground only. The petition is treated as having been filed under section 561-A Cr.P.C. 5. The main plank of the argument raised by the petitioner, who appeared in person to argue his case, is that the trial court and the revisional court have not taken care of the contents of the complaint and have dismissed the complaint of the petitioner herein without looking into the various aspects of the case. In nut-shell, the argument of the petitioner is that the complaint filed by the petitioner comprised of various events which took place at Mumbai as well as in Jammu which vested the Courts at Jammu also to entertain the complaint of the petitioner. 6. It may be mentioned herein that the complaint was filed before the trial court under Sections 420, 109, 110 and other sections of the Ranbir Panel Code and the petition reveals that the complaint filed by the complainant revolves around a cheque issued by the mother (now deceased) of the parties to this petition in favour of the petitioner herein and which could not be realized by the petitioner for certain reasons for which the respondent is allegedly held responsible by the petitioner-complainant. It appears from the petition record that the petitioner herein complains of numerous aspects including communications by virtue of which he was cheated in the transaction mentioned in the complaint. 7. Chapter XV of the J&K Criminal Procedure Code (as it was applicable at the relevant point of time) deals with the jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials. Section 177 mentions of the offence being ordinarily inquired and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed. Section 180 refers to the situation when an act is an offence in relation to any other act which is also an offence. Section 182 speaks of where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another or where an offence is a continuing one and continues to be committed in more local areas than one or where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, inquiry or trial can take place at any of such local areas. Sections 180 and 182 or other provisions in the aforesaid chapter create exception to the ordinary rule of inquiry or trial contained in Section 177 Cr.P.C. and are required to be taken care of and considered while deciding the complaint on jurisdictional issue. Both the courts while dismissing the complaint of the petitioner herein have focused their attention on the cheque only and have not considered the preliminary statements recorded in the complaint and other material including documents mentioned in the complaint which, as per complainant, also resulted into cheating of the petitioner by the respondent. May be, the attention of the courts was not adequately drawn to this aspect of the case and thus not considered by them. However, the courts were required to take into consideration all the factors mentioned in the complaint before deciding the jurisdictional issue. 8. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is that this Court in the present petition cannot deal with the disputed questions of fact. The court is in agreement with the argument of learned counsel for the respondent that this Court will not ordinarily fathom the disputed questions of fact while exercising inherent jurisdiction and in the present case also the court is not touching upon and deciding the factual aspects of the case. However, this court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction vested in it under section 561-A Cr.P.C can pass such order as to secure the ends of justice. This Court refrains from giving any finding on the factual aspects of the case including the one whether the Courts at Jammu have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the petitioner herein as it is only dealing with the limited question of illegality, if any, committed by the trial court and the revisional court while dismissing the complaint and the revision petition respectively. As this court is of the view that the courts below while deciding with the matter of jurisdiction have failed to deal with all the aspects which required consideration and has caused miscarriage of justice, therefore, to meet and secure the ends of justice intervention by this court in the orders passed by the courts below has become imperative. 9. In the light of what is held above, the Court sets aside the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu. Consequently, the order of the trial court also stands set aside. 9. In the light of what is held above, the Court sets aside the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu. Consequently, the order of the trial court also stands set aside. The matter is required to be dealt with afresh by the learned trial court while deciding the jurisdiction issue. It is made clear that the trial court shall decide the issue of jurisdiction irrespective of any observation made in the order passed in the present petition or orders passed by the trial court and revisional court. This court has not expressed itself regarding any specific provision of law having applicability in the case. 10. The trial court shall take up the case on 06.10.2020 and thereafter as per directions issued by the high court for the subordinate courts for dealing with the cases during covid pandemic. The petition is disposed of.