9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Jurisdictional challenge in a criminal complaint under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code filed at New Delhi against the petitioner for disputes arising from a civil nature contract.
Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a supplier of carpets, entered into agreements with respondent No. 2 at Bhadohi, specifying the supply of carpets to the branch office at Bhadohi. Disputes arose, leading to a subsequent agreement dated 4-2-1988 at Bhadohi. The petitioner challenges the complaint filed at New Delhi, alleging lack of territorial jurisdiction. 2. The agreements between the parties clearly indicate Bhadohi as the place of agreement and delivery of carpets. The complaint filed in New Delhi by respondent No. 2, despite no dealings between Bhadohi and New Delhi offices, lacks jurisdictional basis. The court cites a similar case precedent to support the jurisdictional analysis. 3. Witness testimonies and documentary evidence further establish the agreements and transactions occurred at Bhadohi. The court emphasizes that filing a complaint in a jurisdiction lacking territorial connection amounts to an abuse of court process. Therefore, the court quashes the proceedings against the petitioner for lack of jurisdiction. 4. The court highlights the importance of territorial jurisdiction in criminal complaints, emphasizing that parties should not be compelled to submit to a court's jurisdiction in a distant location. The judgment concludes by quashing the criminal complaint and summoning of the petitioner, as the proceedings lacked jurisdiction.
|
