Rasik Ballabh Rastogi v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

0 ORDER % 07.10.2013 In the above-captioned seven petitions, quashing of criminal complaints under Section 138 ofNegotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is sought by raising the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Since quashing is soughton identical grounds in the above-captioned petitions, therefore these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Learned counsel for petitioners had sought to argue these petitions on merits biUt it was inquired from him as to whether Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. has been framed by the trial court or not. Learned counsel for the ^ parties had informed this Court that hearing on the point of framing of Notice is yet to take place before the trial court. In view of aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction in deciding these petitions on merits as petitioners have an alternative and efficacious remedy available to him i.e. to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the stage of framing of Notice. Such a course is being adopted in view of dictum of Apex Court in Krishna Kumar Crl.M.C.No.637 to 643 of 2010 Page 3 Variar v. Share Shoppe (2010) 12 SCC 485. Pertinent observations in Krishna Kumar (supra) are as under:- "4. In our opinion, in such cases where the accused or any otherperson raises an objection that the trial court has nojurisdiction in the matter, the said person should file an application before the trial court making this averment and giving the relevantfacts. Whether a court has jurisdiction to try/entertain a case will, at least in part, dependupon thefacts ofthe case. Hence, insteadof rushing to the higher court against the summoning order, the person concerned should approach the trial court with a suitable applicationfor thispurpose and the trial court should after hearing both the sides and recording evidence, ifnecessary, decide the question ofjurisdiction beforeproceedingfurther with the case.

5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned judgment and order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant, ifso advised, may approach the trial court with a suitable application in this connection and, ifsuch an application isfiled, the trial court shall after hearing both the sides and after recording evidence on the question onjurisdiction, shall decide the question ofjurisdiction beforefurtherproceeding with the trial." Without commenting upon merits of the pleas raised in these petitions, above-captioned petitions are disposed of with liberty to petitioners to raise the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the stage of hearing on the point of framing of Notice. Needless to say that trial court shall deal with the pleas so raised at the stage of hearing on the point of framing of Notice and shall deal with them by passing a speaking order. It Crl.M.C.No.637 to 643 of 2010 Page 4 \V) goes without saying that the Apex Court's decision in Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal and Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 338 will not stand in the way of trial court in returning the complaints in question, if it is found that trial court lacks territorial jurisdiction to deal with the complaints in question. With directions as aforesaid, the above-captioned petitions and the applications stand disposed of OCTOBER 07,2013 vn (SUNIL GAUR) Judge Crl.M.C.No.637to643of2010 Page 5