Sandeep Sahu and Others vs Vijay Sahu

R.C. Mishra, J.

Arguments heard.

This is a petition, u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ''the Code''), for quashing of the proceedings, pending as Cri. Case No. 6727/09 before Smt. Preeti Singh, JMFC, Bhopal, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. In that case, cognizance of the offence, u/s 406 of the IPC, has been taken upon the complaint made by the respondent, the father of Rama (since dead), whose marriage was solemnized with petitioner No. 1, the son of other petitioners, at Village Gadasarai, Distt. Dindori.

Before proceeding further, it is necessary to first advert to the relevant provision in the form of sub-section (4) of Section 181 of the Code, that reads -

Place of trial in case of certain offences.-

.........

(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 to the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person.

(Emphasis supplied)

Placing implicit reliance on the view taken in Shushil Chaudhary v. Smt. Hemlata Chaudhary 2002 (5) MPHT 12 (NOC), wherein the decision rendered in Vijay Kumar and Another Vs. Sunita and Others, was followed, learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously contended that the Court at Bhopal has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint merely on the ground that the respondent, by way of a notice, had asked the petitioners to return the dowry money and articles at his residence there.

In reply, learned counsel for the respondent, while making reference to the decision of another single Bench of this Court in Mohammad Noor and others Vs. Nikhat Pharjana, , has submitted that the Court at Bhopal also has the jurisdiction to try the offence. But, a careful reading of the decision shows that the precedents in the cases of Sushil Choudhary and Vijay Kumar were not referred to and the ratio laid down in an earlier case reported as Gopal Rao v. Baldeo 1960 MPLJ Note 180, that was relied on, related to the corresponding provision of sub-section (2) of Section 181 in the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. However, under the New Code, the sub-section (2) [supra] has not only been renumbered as sub-section (4) but also redrafted and an additional alternative venue, where the property was required to be returned or accounted for by the accused person, has been added.

In such a situation, as explained by a Full Bench of this Court in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Another, , the earlier decisions, rendered by Benches of equal strength in Vijay Kumar and Sushil Choudhary which relate to re-drafted provision, have to be followed as the binding precedents.

For the academic purpose, it may also be pointed out that the view taken in Sushil Choudhary''s case is also in consonance with the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harjeet Singh Ahluwalia Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , that has been relied on by the Jharkhand High Court in Prabhakar Jha, Parmanand Jha and Indu Devi Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ashok Kumar,

Accordingly, the proceedings at Bhopal are liable to be quashed for want of territorial jurisdiction. The petition, therefore, stands allowed and the proceedings in Cri. Case No. 6727/09 (above) are hereby quashed with liberty to file a complaint in the Court within whose territorial jurisdiction Village Gadasarai is situated.

C.C. as per rules.