In a petition filed by the State before the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 (CPC) against an order dated 29-06-2015 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satna, whereby the respondents were acquitted noting that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi set aside the impugned order and allowed the petition.
A First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the respondents alleging offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Thereafter, a charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate. During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondents raised an objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction, which was accepted by the trial court. Aggrieved, the respondents preferred a criminal revision, which was allowed and directed the trial court to proceed as per law after holding that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to prosecute the respondents. Thereafter, the Judicial Magistrate, by the impugned order, acquitted the respondents without recording any evidence or conducting any trial.
The Court stated that since the State had not assailed the order by the revisional court, the scope of the present petition was confined to examining the legality and propriety of the order dated 29-06-2015 whereby the respondents were acquitted. It was stated that an order of acquittal cannot be recorded merely because the court lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The Court said that once the revisional court held that the Judicial Magistrate had no territorial jurisdiction to try the offences, the Magistrate ceased to possess authority to enter into the merits of the prosecution or to pass an order terminating the proceedings. It was held that the proper and lawful course available to the Magistrate was to return the police report for presentation before the court having competent jurisdiction.
The Court held that the impugned order was manifestly illegal and suffered from patent jurisdictional error resulting in failure of justice. Thus, the petition was allowed and the impugned order was set aside. The Judicial Magistrate was directed to return the police report and all connected papers to be presented before the court possessing competent territorial jurisdiction.
