Brief Facts
- That Appellant filed a criminal complaint before Magistrate Court on 20.02.2016 regarding dishonoured cheques worth Rs. 45,20,000. The court issued summons to the accused and subsequently the prosecution evidence, defense evidence has been conducted. During final arguments, the Magistrate determined that the complaint lacked territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, the Accused was discharged on 18.02.2020, without allowing the Appellant to seek a jurisdiction transfer. Appellant approached High Court and petition before the High Court was dismissed on 07.12.2021, upholding the discharge.
Issues
- Whether the Trial Court was justified in discharging the Accused merely on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint?
Held
- The Apex Court allowed the appeal and directed the trial to be continued.
- We are passing this order since we feel that the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, has passed the order without realizing the legal consequences as well as the fact that the trial had remained pending for more than four years and had proceeded without any objection to territorial jurisdiction, till the stage of final arguments. There was a lapse and proper legal guidance, which was not provided to the appellant. Appellant should not suffer on account of lack of proper legal assistance. Procedural defect/lapse, had a remedy, and was not substantial as to constitute lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The Code is procedural in nature and technical defects and irregularities should not come in the way of substantial justice.
Relevant Page No.
- 2, 3