[2010] 5 S.C.R. 1153
KRISHNA KUMAR VARIAR
v.
SHARE SHOPPE
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 961-962 of 2010)
MAY 3, 2010
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
A
B
s.482 - Summoning order challenged by accused on c
the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of trial court -
Petition rejected by High Court - HELD: In such cases where
the accused or any other person raises an objection that the
trial court has no jurisdiction in the matter, the said person,
instead of rushing to higher court, should file an application D
before the trial court making this averment and giving the
relevant facts - Whether a court has jurisdiction to try!
entertain a case will, at least in part, depend upon the facts
of the case - The trial court should after hearing both the
sides and recording evidence, if necessary, decide the
E
question of jurisdiction before proceeding further with the case
- Impugned order set aside - Appellant, if so advised, may
approach the trial court with a suitable application in this
regard.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No(s). 961-62 of 2010.
From the Judgment & Order dated 14.05.2009 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Misc. No. 1487 of 2009
and Criminal M.A. No. 5400 of 2009.
Vineet Bhagat, K.G. Bhagat, Manju BhageJ, Monohar
Singh Bakshi, Varun Kumar for the Appellant.
~
1153
F
G
H
1154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 5 S.C.R.
A
Sonal Jain, Gautam Laha, Pravir Kumar Jain for the
Respondent.
The following order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
B
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal has been filed against the impugned
C judgment and order dated 14.05.2009 of the High Court of Delhi
whereby the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the
petitioner herein has been dismissed.
4. The appellant herein is an accused under Sections 415/
D 420 IPC in which summons have been issued to him by a Court
at Delhi. He challenged the summoning order on the ground
that it is only the Court at Bombay which has jurisdiction to try
and entertain the complaint. His petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. Challenging the summoning order has been rejected
E
by the High Court by the impugned order. Hence he is before
us in this appeal.
5. In our opinion, in such cases where the accused or any
other person raises an objection that the Trial court has no
jurisdiction in the matter, the said person should filed an
F
application before the Trial Court making this averment and
giving the relevant facts. Whether a court has Jurisdiction to try/
entertain a case will, at least in part, depend upon the facts of
the case. Hence, instead of rushing to the higher Court against
the summoning order, the concerned person should approach
G the Trial court with a suitable application for this purpose and
the Trial court should after hearing both the sides and recording
evidence, if necessary, decide the question of jurisdiction
before proceeding further with the case.
H
6. For the reason stated herein above, the impugned
KRISHNA KUMAR VARIAR v. SHARE SHOPPE
1155
judgment and order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The
A
appellant, if so advised, may approach the Trial Court with a
suitable application in this connection and, if such an application
is filed, the Trial Court shall after hearing both the sides and
after recording evidence on the question on jurisdiction, shall
decide the question of jurisdiction before further proceeding
B
with -the Trial.
R.P.
Appeal allowed.
Lex