Criminal Miscellaneous No.3346 OF 1998 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ---- NARAYAN CHAND MOKHERJEE, SON OF LATE LN.C. MOKHERJEE, RESIDENT OF 87, NEW BARA DWARI, POLICE STATION- SAKCHI, DISTRICT JAMSHEDPUR. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ASIATIC OXYGEN LIMITED, A COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 8 B.B.D.BAGH (EAST), CALCUTTA-700 001. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Mohan, Adv. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Subhro Sanyal, Adv. For the State : Mrs.Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ---- Rakesh kumar,J. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of order dated 27.9.1997 passed in Complaint Case No.578 (C) of 1997 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 406, 408, 409, 417, 418, 421, 422, 423, 465, 468, 471 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The sole ground in the present case has been taken by the learned counsel for the 2 petitioner that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Patna was not having jurisdiction to take cognizance in the present case. It was argued that entire cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Jamshedpur and as such only a court of Jamshedpur was having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon provision contained in Section 181(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he submits that for the offences for which learned Magistrate has taken cognizance the case can only be tried within the jurisdiction of Jamshedpur not at Patna. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 1996 PLJR 574 (Kameshwar Prasad Singh Vs. Nalanda Sales Corporation). He submits that in similar circumstances, this Court has held that a court can take cognizance of the offence in a case in which entire cause of action arose within his jurisdiction. 4. Shri Subhro Sanyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2, has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. While relying on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court 3 reported in 1999(8) Supreme Court Cases 686 (TRISUNS CHEMICAL INDUSTRY VS. RAJESH AGARWAL AND OTHERS), he submits that under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate has got power to take cognizance for offences even though the offence was not committed within his territorial jurisdiction. He has referred to paragraph-14 of the TRISUNS CHEMICAL INDUSTRY’S case (Supra). It is better to quote the same, which is as follows : “14. The jurisdictional aspect becomes relevant only when the question of enquiry or trial arises. It is therefore a fallacious thinking that only a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case has the power to take cognizance of the offence. If he is a Magistrate of the First Class his power to take cognizance of the offence is not impaired by territorial restrictions. After taking cognizance he may have to decide as to the court which has jurisdiction to enquire into or try the offence 4 and that situation would reach only during the post-cognizance stage and not earlier.” 5. Moreover, in the present case, the petitioner has argued that entire cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Jamshedpur which lies within the district of Jharkhand State and as such this Court cannot pass a direction for transferring the present case to the court of Jamshedpur at Jharkhand. Under the provisions contained in Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this power lies only with Hon’ble Supreme Court. In view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Trisuns Chemical Industry, it is difficult for this Court to interfere with the order of cognizance. However, the petitioner is entitled to avail the remedies which is available to him under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present case and petition stands rejected. 7. By order dated 4.3.1998, while issuing notice to the opposite party no.2, this Court had directed that in the meantime, further 5 proceeding in the court below shall remain stayed. Subsequently, on 14.7.1998, the case was admitted for hearing and it was directed that during the pendency of this application, the interim order dated 4.3.1998 shall continue. 8. In view of rejection of this petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 4.5.2010 N.A.F.R./N.H.