JUDGMENT : By means of filing this criminal revision petition under section 401 read with section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C hereunder). Petitioner Nimai Roy has challenged the judgment and order dated 09.02.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala (Court No.2) in Criminal Revision 02 of 2019 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.7), Agartala in CR No. 299 of 2017. [2] By his order dated 26.11.2018, the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint lodged by Smt. Banani Sarkar (respondent No.2 herein) against the present petitioner and discharged him from the case on the ground that court lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the case since the place of occurrence was beyond the territorial limits of its jurisdiction. Said order was challenged by Smt. Banani Sarkar (respondent No.2) in the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Court No.2) at Agartala. By the impugned judgment, the Additional Sessions Judge held that findings of the trail court were incorrect because part of the occurrence took place within the limits of territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. Therefore, by setting aside the order of the trial court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the trial court to restore the case to its file and proceed with the matter from the stage at which it was dismissed. [3] Aggrieved thereby, the accused petitioner has approached this court for setting aside the order of the learned Additional Session Judge. [4] Essential facts relevant for disposal are as under: Smt. Banani Sarkar (respondent No.2) lodged a written complaint in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Agartala against present petitioner Nimai Roy. Her complaint was registered as case No. CR 299 of 2017 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate which was later transferred to the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.7), Agartala. Having taken cognizance of offence punishable under section 342 IPC, the learned Judicial Magistrate examined the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C and thereafter summoned the accused (present petitioner) to appear before the court for his examination under section 251 Cr.P.C. At that stage of the case, accused petitioner challenged the maintainability of the proceedings on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the trial court which was decided in favour of accused petitioner. Case against him was dismissed on jurisdictional ground and he was discharged from the case. [5] At this juncture, it would be appropriate to give a summary of the complaint for a better understanding of the case. [6] In her complaint lodged against the petitioner complainant stated that her husband Manik Roy was murdered in the year 2006 when her daughter was only 4 years’ old. On account of murder of her husband a case was registered under section 302 IPC and investigation was taken up by police into the said incident and after investigation, police submitted charge sheet which culminated into trial as ST (GTA) 54 of 2015. Complainant was made an accused in the said murder case and she was arrested by police during investigation. At that time she used to live at Agartala in Officers quarters lane behind Sishu Bihar School. Her accused brother in law Nimai Roy (present petitioner) and her father in law came to her house at Agartala and took away her daughter along with her property documents and wrongfully confined her daughter in their house at Golaghati in Sepahijala District. After she was enlarged on bail, she requested her accused brother in law (petitioner) to return her daughter. Since he did not return her minor daughter to her, she lodged the said complaint in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Agartala against her said brother in law for having committed offence punishable under section 342 IPC. By filing a separate petition she wanted search warrant for search and recovery of her daughter from the house of her accused brother in law. [7] In view of such complaint, the learned trial court held that the alleged offence of wrongful confinement of the daughter of the complainant took place at Golaghati at Sepahijala District. Therefore, the complainant should have filed a complaint in the jurisdictional court in Sepahijala Judicial District. It was held by the trial court that the case was liable to be dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction of the trial court and accordingly the complaint was dismissed with a liberty to the complainant to file fresh complaint before the jurisdictional court. [8] The order dated 26.11.2018 of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Court No.7), Agartala reads as under: “Complainant Smt Banani Sarkar is absent by fling one petition through her ld engaged counsel Mr. I. Banik. [8] The order dated 26.11.2018 of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Court No.7), Agartala reads as under: “Complainant Smt Banani Sarkar is absent by fling one petition through her ld engaged counsel Mr. I. Banik. Accused Nimai Roy is present along with his ld engaged counsel Mr J. K. Sen. Perused the case record. Today the case is fixed hearing/order. It is seen that at the time of preparing the substance of accusation against the accused it was noticed that the place of occurrence is situated at Golaghati , under Takarjala PS , District Siphaijala. Heard ld counsels for accused who submitted that this case is not maintainable as the jurisdiction falls under Siphaijala District. Ld Counsel for the complainant Mr I. Banik strongly objected the petition and submitted that this is a case where the offence continued from Agartala, Krishnanagar to Golaghati Bishalgarh and hence this case may be continued. It is seen that though the present residential address of the complainant is at A D Nagar, Road No. 5 Agartala and in the complaint petition it is mentioned that the accused took the child of the complainant away from Krishnanagar, Agartala , it is noticed that this is a case u/s.342 IPC and not under any section regarding any kidnapping. This is a case for wrongful confinement and as per section 340 IPC the definition of wrongful confinement is who ever wrongfully restrained any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limit, is said to have wrongful confined that person. From the evidence of the complainant u/s.200 Cr PC and from the entire complaint petition, the ingredients of wrongful confinement was found but that is outside the local jurisdiction of this court i.e. at Golaghati under the jurisdiction of Siphaijala District. This is a summons procedure case and hence considering the overall circumstances regarding the place of occurrence, I find that this court does not have the jurisdiction to try this case. Hence this instant case is hereby dropped with a liberty to the complainant to file afresh before the competent court within whose Local jurisdiction the case falls. The accused Nimai Roy is discharged from the liability of this case. Thus the case is disposed of without contest. Hence this instant case is hereby dropped with a liberty to the complainant to file afresh before the competent court within whose Local jurisdiction the case falls. The accused Nimai Roy is discharged from the liability of this case. Thus the case is disposed of without contest. Make necessary entry.” [9] Aggrieved complainant (respondent No.2 herein) challenged the said order of the Judicial Magistrate in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Court No.2), Agartala in West Tripura District in Criminal Revision Petition 02 of 2019. It was held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the daughter of the complainant was taken away from the rented house of the complainant at Agartala though afterwards she was allegedly kept in confinement at Golaghati in Sepahijala District. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, viewed that the alleged offence commenced when the accused (present petitioner) had taken the daughter of the complainant from her house at Agartala and as such the offence was partly committed under the jurisdiction of the trial court at Agartala. Therefore, in terms of section 178(b), Cr.P.C, both the courts at Agartala as well as the court at Bishalgarh in Sepahijala Judicial District were having jurisdiction to try the case and the trial court at Agartala committed error in holding that it had no jurisdiction to try the case. Accordingly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order dated 26.11.2018 of the learned trial court and directed the trial court to proceed with the case from the stage at which it was dismissed holding as under: “4………………………………The facts as prima facie emerges from the record of trial court that the petitioner while was in judicial custody, her daughter was taken away by the respondent at Golagati and wrongfully confined her there. There is no allegation of kidnapping. It therefore, appears that the respondent had taken away the daughter of petitioner from the place which is situated well within the local jurisdiction of the trial court. But the daughter of petitioner was allegedly wrongfully confined at Golagati. The intention of the respondent as to keep the daughter of petitioner in wrongful confinement while taking her away needs investigation and a decision on merit to be rendered by trial court. What therefore, surfaces is that the alleged offence commenced when the respondent had taken the daughter of petitioner from the quarters at Agartala. The intention of the respondent as to keep the daughter of petitioner in wrongful confinement while taking her away needs investigation and a decision on merit to be rendered by trial court. What therefore, surfaces is that the alleged offence commenced when the respondent had taken the daughter of petitioner from the quarters at Agartala. Therefore, taking reference to Section 178 of CrPC it can be said that alleged offence was committed partly in the local area under the jurisdiction of trial court and was completed within the jurisdiction of the court at Sepahijala. So both the competent courts at Agartala, West Tripura and the courts at Sepahijala have the jurisdiction to entertain the case of the petitioner. Regard being had to such circumstances I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 26.11.2018 is liable to be interfered with which I hereby do. 5. Having observed thus, we are of the considered opinion that the order so passed by the court cannot sustain. Accordingly, the order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the trial court in CR 299 of 2017 stands set aside with direction to the trial court to restore the case to its file and to proceed with the case from the stage at which it was dismissed…………………………….” [10] In view of the facts and circumstances presented before this court the following questions arise for consideration of this court: (i) Whether the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction over the case. (ii) Whether the trial court can arrive at the conclusion with regard to its territorial jurisdiction in such matter without recording evidence. [11] Mr. A. Acharjee, counsel appearing for the accused petitioner has simply argued that the trial court rightly decided that it had no territorial jurisdiction to try the offence since the offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Sepahijala Judicial District. Counsel argued that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is erroneous because the offence was committed only at Golaghati in Sepahijala District where the daughter of the complainant was wrongfully confined and no part of it was committed within the jurisdiction of the trial court at Agartala. Therefore, the trial court had no territorial jurisdiction to try the offence. Counsel, therefore, urges the court for allowing his petition. [12] Ms. N. Ghosh, counsel appearing for the complainant has vehemently opposed the petition. Therefore, the trial court had no territorial jurisdiction to try the offence. Counsel, therefore, urges the court for allowing his petition. [12] Ms. N. Ghosh, counsel appearing for the complainant has vehemently opposed the petition. Counsel submits that impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is based on proper appreciation of facts and law which does not call for any interference in criminal revision. Counsel, therefore, urges for dismissal of the petition. [13] It would appear from the facts of the case that the complainant respondent is the sister in law of the petitioner. After her husband was murdered, the complainant respondent was booked for killing her husband. At that time she was residing in the Official quarters of her deceased husband at Agartala. Her accused brother in law and her father in law met her in the said Official quarters and they had taken her 4 years’ old daughter with them for performing the funeral rituals of her deceased father. Thereafter, the complainant was arrested by police and put to jail. She was in jail for about six months. It was complained by her at the trial court that inspite of her repeated requests from jail, her daughter was never shown to her by her in laws. Even after her release, when she went to her matrimonial house to take back her daughter she was ousted from there by her in laws. Though her daughter was willing to return to her complainant mother, she was wrongfully restrained by the accused. For redress, complainant filed the said complaint against her accused brother in law for committing the offence of wrongful confinement punishable under section 342 IPC. [14] Obviously, the parties to the dispute are closely related and their dispute involves a trivial issue but the merit of her complaint is not in issue in the present case. As discussed, this court is required to decide only two issues, one of which relates to the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court and the other relates to the correctness of the procedure adopted by the trial court for deciding its territorial jurisdiction. [15] I have considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties. [15] I have considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties. [16] The jurisdiction of criminal courts including territorial jurisdiction in respect of inquiries and trials are dealt with under Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mainly in sections 177 to 184. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaushik Chatterjee Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in 2020 CRI. L.J. 4923: AIROnline 2020 SC 751 has summarized the principles laid down under sections 177 to 184, Cr.P.C with regard to the jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials as under: “20. Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 contains provisions relating to jurisdiction of criminal Courts in inquiries and trials. The Code maintains a distinction between (i) inquiry; (ii) investigation; and (iii) trial. The words “inquiry” and “investigation” are defined respectively in clauses (g) and (h) of Section 2 of the Code. 21. The principles laid down in Sections 177 to 184 of the Code (contained in Chapter XIII) regarding the jurisdiction of criminal Courts in inquiries and trials can be summarized in simple terms as follows: (1) Every offence should ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. This rule is found in Section 177. The expression “local jurisdiction” found in Section 177 is defined in Section 2(j) to mean “in relation to a Court or Magistrate, the local area within which the Court or Magistrate may exercise all or any of its or his powers under the Code” (2) In case of uncertainty about the place in which, among the several local areas, an offence was committed, the Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas may inquire into or try such an offence. (3) Where an offence is committed partly in one area and partly in another, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. (4) In the case of a continuing offence which is committed in more local areas than one, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. (4) In the case of a continuing offence which is committed in more local areas than one, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. (5) Where an offence 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. (Numbers 2 to 5 are traceable to Section 178) (6) Where something is an offence by reason of the act done, as well as the consequence that ensued, then the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction either the act was done or the consequence ensued.(Section 179) (7) In cases where an act is an offence, by reason of its relation to any other act which is also an offence, then the first mentioned offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction either of the acts was done. (Section 180) (8) In certain cases such as dacoity, dacoity with murder, escaping from custody etc., the offence may be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction either the offence was committed or the accused person was found. (9) In the case of an offence of kidnapping or abduction, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the person was kidnapped or conveyed or concealed or detained. (10) The offences of theft, extortion or robbery may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction, the offence was committed or the stolen property was possessed, received or retained. (11) An offence of criminal misappropriation or 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 was received or retained or was required to be returned or accounted for by the accused person. (12) An offence which includes the possession of stolen property, may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the stolen property was possessed by any person, having knowledge that it is stolen property. (Nos. (12) An offence which includes the possession of stolen property, may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the stolen property was possessed by any person, having knowledge that it is stolen property. (Nos. 8 to 12 are found in Section 181) (13) An offence which includes cheating, if committed by means of letters or telecommunication messages, may be inquired into or tried by any Court within whose local jurisdiction such letters or messages were sent or received. (14) An offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of the property may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the property was delivered by the person deceived or was received by the accused person. (15) Some offences relating to marriage such as Section 494, IPC (marrying again during the life time of husband or wife) and Section 495, IPC (committing the offence under Section 494 with concealment of former marriage) may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the offender last resided with the spouse by the first marriage. (Nos. 13 to 15 are found in Section 182) (16) An offence committed in the course of a journey or voyage may be inquired into or tried by a Court through or into whose local jurisdiction that person or thing passed in the course of that journey or voyage. (Section 183). (17) Cases falling under Section 219 (three offences of the same kind committed within a space of twelve months whether in respect of the same person or not), cases falling under Section 220 (commission of more offences than one, in one series of acts committed together as to form the same transaction) and cases falling under Section 221, (where it is doubtful what offences have been committed), may be inquired into or tried by any Court competent to inquire into or try any of the offences. (Section 184).” [17] Relying on its earlier decision in Purushottam Das Dalmia Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1961 SC 1589 and also in the case of Raj Kumari Vijh Vs. Dev Raj Vijh reported in AIR 1977 SC 1101 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case of Kaushik Chatterjee (Supra) further held as follows with regard to territorial jurisdiction of criminal courts: “36. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1961 SC 1589 and also in the case of Raj Kumari Vijh Vs. Dev Raj Vijh reported in AIR 1977 SC 1101 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case of Kaushik Chatterjee (Supra) further held as follows with regard to territorial jurisdiction of criminal courts: “36. It was specifically held by this Court in Raj Kumari Vijh (supra) that the question of jurisdiction with respect to the power of the Court to try particular kinds of offences goes to the root of the matter and that any transgression of the same would make the entire trial void. However, territorial jurisdiction, according to this Court “is a matter of convenience, keeping in mind the administrative point of view with respect to the work of a particular court, the convenience of the accused and the convenience of the witnesses who have to appear before the Court.” [18] It has been held by the Apex Court that where the controversy relates solely to the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate who is otherwise competent to try the case, the case would normally be covered by saving clause under section 462 Cr.P.C which is in pari materia with such section 531 of the old Code of 1898. [19] Moreover, it would appear from the record that simply after taking cognizance of offence and without recording any evidence in the case, the learned trial court held that it had no territorial jurisdiction to try the offence. In this regard the Apex Court in the case of Kaushik Chatterjee (Supra) had held that issue of jurisdiction of a court to try an offence or offender or issue of territorial jurisdiction, depend on the facts established through evidence. Observation of the Apex Court is as under: “39. But be that as it may, the upshot of the above discussion is (i) that the issue of jurisdiction of a court to try an “offence” or “offender” as well as the issue of territorial jurisdiction, depend upon facts established through evidence (ii) that if the issue is one of territorial jurisdiction, the same has to be decided with respect to the various rules enunciated in sections 177 to 184 of the Code and (iii) that these questions may have to be raised before the court trying the offence and such court is bound to consider the same. 40. 40. Having taken note of the legal position, let me now come back to the cases on hand. 41. As seen from the pleadings, the type of jurisdictional issue, raised in the cases on hand, is one of territorial jurisdiction, at least as of now. The answer to this depends upon facts to be established by evidence. The facts to be established by evidence, may relate either to the place of commission of the offence or to other things dealt with by Sections 177 to 184 of the Code. In such circumstances, this Court cannot order transfer, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, even before evidence is marshaled. Hence the transfer petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, they are dismissed. 41A. However, it is open to both parties to raise the issue of territorial jurisdiction, lead evidence on questions of fact that may fall within the purview of Sections 177 to 184 read with Section 26 of the Code and invite a finding. With the above observations the transfer petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.” [20] In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaushik Chatterjee (Supra), the criminal revision petition stands dismissed with a direction that if either of the parties re-agitates the issue with regard to territorial jurisdiction the trial court at Agartala will decide the matter with regard to territorial jurisdiction only after recording evidence. Otherwise the trial court at Agartala will proceed with the trial of the case and dispose the matter as early as possible. [21] In terms of the above, the case is disposed of. Send down the LCR. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.