KRISHNA KUMAR VARIAR v.

SHARE SHOPPE (Criminal Appeal Nos. 961-962 of 2010)

MAY 3, 2010 [Markandey Katju and A.K. Patnaik, JJ.]

2010 (5) SCR 1153

The following order of the Court was delivered  

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated  

14.05.2009 of the High Court of Delhi whereby the petition filed under Section 482  

Cr.P.C. by the petitioner herein has been dismissed.

4.  The  appellant  herein  is  an  accused  under  Sections  415/420  IPC in  which  

summons have been issued to him by a Court at Delhi. He challenged the summoning  

order on the ground that it is only the Court at Bombay which has jurisdiction to try  

and entertain the complaint. His petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Challenging the  

summoning order has been rejected by the High Court by the impugned order. Hence  

he is before us in this appeal.

5. In our opinion, in such cases where the accused or any other person raises an  

objection that the Trial court has no jurisdiction in the matter, the said person should  

filed  an  application  before  the  Trial  Court  making  this  averment  and  giving  the  

relevant facts. Whether a court has Jurisdiction to try/entertain a case will, at least in  

part, depend upon the facts of the case. Hence, instead of rushing to the higher Court  

against the summoning order, the concerned person should approach the Trial court  

with a suitable application for this purpose and the Trial court should after hearing

both  the  sides  and  recording  evidence,  if  necessary,  decide  the  question  of  

jurisdiction before proceeding further with the case.

6. For the reason stated herein above, the impugned judgment and order is set aside  

and the appeal is allowed. The appellant, if so advised, may approach the Trial Court  

with a suitable application in this connection and, if such an application is filed, the  

Trial Court shall after hearing both the sides and after recording evidence on the  

question on jurisdiction, shall decide the question of jurisdiction before further  

proceeding with the Trial.