G SHIRIL SAROJ Vs. VINAY KANODIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARGUMENTS have been addressed whether the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who entertained the complaint of the respondent had jurisdiction to do so or not.

(2.) SECTION 17 of Cr. P.C. pertains to Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in metropolitan cities and reads as under:

(3.) IN the present case, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of district New Delhi kept this complaint with himself instead of marking it to other Metropolitan Magistrate. I consider he committed no illegality in entertaining the complaint. The issue of jurisdiction is, therefore, decided accordingly.