Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (3.97 seconds)Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Smt. Sujata Mukherjee vs Prashant Kumar Mukherjee on 30 April, 1997
While considering the case of Smt. Sujata Mukherjee (supra), and distinguishing it on the facts of the case, In Y. Abraham Ajith (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that the crucial question is "whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court. In terms of Section 177 of the Code, it is the place where the offence was committed. In essence it is the cause of action for initiation of the proceedings against the accused. It further held that the expression "cause of action" is, therefore, not a stranger to criminal cases. The cause of action consists of a bundle of facts, which give cause to enforce the legal inquiry for redress in a court of law. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the allegedly affected party a right to claim relief against the opponent. It must include some act done by the latter since in the absence of such an act no cause of action would possibly accrue or would arise".
Section 156 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors vs Inspector Of Police, Chennai & Anr on 17 August, 2004
9. In the instant case, since all the acts and omissions were done at Gwalior, therefore, the cause of action arose in Gwalior and not in Jaipur. Hence, relying on the principle of law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith (supra), we are of the opinion that the Courts at Jaipur do not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case at Jaipur. Hence, the cognizance order dated 4.12.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate is quashed and set aside. However, the respondent No. 2 is free to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners in a competent Court at Gwalior.
Section 177 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of M.P. vs Suresh Kaushal And Anr. [Alongwith ... on 1 May, 2001
In order to substantiate his contention, he has relied on certain judgments of the Apex Court and of this Court: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Suresh Kaushal and Anr. 2001(3) Crimes 314 (SC), Smt. Sujata Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee AIR 1997 SC 246 and Jagdish and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 1998 RCC 9. Learned Public Prosecutor has also supported the impugned order.
Section 177 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
1