DIPANKER DUTT GUPTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three petitioners of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code')are the three named accused of Complaint case No. 795 (C) of 2000 pending before the sdjm, Patna. They have prayed for quashing of order dated 31-10-2005 passed by learned SDJM, Patna whereby he has rejected the objection raised by the petitioners to the continuation of complaint case in any Court at Patna on the ground of jurisdiction.

(2.) IT appears that earlier the petitioners had moved this Court through a petition under Section 482 of the Code and the said cr. Misc. No. 24014 of 2001 was disposed of by this Court on 2-1-2002 vide Annexure-1. This Court on that occasion allowed the prayer of the accused persons, the petitioners, for representation through lawyer as per Section 205 of the Code. But so far as the prayer for quashing of criminal case on account of lack of jurisdiction was concerned, it relied upon judgment of the Apex court in the case of Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal (AIR 1999 SC 3499): (1999 Cri LJ 4325) in which it has been held that the Magistrate taking cognizance of offence must necessarily have territorial jurisdiction to try the case as well, is an erroneous view. Hence, at that stage when only order of cognizance had been passed by the magistrate, this Court disallowed the prayer for quashing of the case on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction in the Magistrate taking cognizance. However, liberty was given to the petitioners to raise the plea of jurisdiction at appropriate stage and it was observed that if such plea is raised then the magistrate must decide the same in accordance with law as per observation of the supreme Court in paragraph 12 of the Judgment in the case of Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal (supra ). In paragraph 12 of the said judgment, the Apex court has observed that after taking cognizance the Magistrate may have to decide as to the Court which has jurisdiction to enquire into or try the offence but this would be only at the post cognizance stage and not earlier.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, the petitioners filed an application before the Court below on 7-2-2002 raising objection to the continuation of the criminal proceeding at Patna because, according to the petitioners, the entire cause of action has arisen at Calcutta and hence, enquiry or trial was required to be done only by a competent Court at Calcutta. The complainant, O. P. No. 2 herein, filed his objection to the said application and thereafter by the impugned order the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate has rejected the objection of the petitioners, as noticed earlier. In the impugned order, the learned magistrate has first noticed that quashing application filed by the petitioners earlier before this Court has been rejected by this court on the basis of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal. Thereafter he has taken note of a stand of the complainant that the offence under Section 120b of the I. P. C. appearing from the complaint petition has taken place at Patna and, therefore, some part of cause of action had arisen at Patna and the Courts at Patna had territorial jurisdiction. For this purpose, learned magistrate took note of averments in paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the complaint petition wherein it has been alleged that accused nos. 2 and 3 had come to Patna and, therefore, those facts would show formation of conspiracy at Patna. He further held that the prayer of the petitioners for transfer of the case to competent Court at Calcutta could not be ordered under Sections 408 or 407 of the Code. He further held that the alleged occurrence of conspiracy to commit the offences had taken place at Patna.