IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2437 of 2007 SAURAVH DUTTA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 17. 19-05-2008 This is an application filed under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for transfer of the case bearing Araria P S Case No. 409 of 2006 (G R No. 1847 of 2006) pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria to the court at Madhubani. Gopal Prasad Das submitted a written report to the Officer Incharge of Araria Police Station giving rise to Araria P S Case No. 409 of 2006 under sections 419, 420, 468, 470, 471, 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, against several persons including the petitioner. After investigation chargesheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken. Learned lawyer for the petitioner Sauravh Dutta who is accused No.1, submits that there is an agreement between the parties disclosing the terms and conditions and at serial No.8 of the agreement it is mentioned that any matter arising out of this agreement shall be subjected to D.P.S. Trust India Regd. (Distt.) 847211 court jurisdiction. He, therefore, submits that any dispute arising out between the parties i.e. the accused persons, the court at Madhubani shall have the jurisdiction in the matter. He further refers to a decision reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2432. He, therefore, submits that the case be transferred to the court at Madhubani. Learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the opposite party – - 2 - informant submits that the accused persons including the petitioner have committed criminal offence and hence the agreement in question disclosing the jurisdiction in the matter of dispute between the parties is not applicable in this case. He submits that the decision cited by the learned lawyer for the petitioner is not applicable in the present case as it relates to a dispute between the parties arising out of an agreement entered into between them. Considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides. I am of the view that this is a criminal case and hence the jurisdiction of the court where the offence was committed will not be ousted simply because there was an agreement between the parties for settlement of dispute arising out of the agreement in a particular district. I, therefore, find that there is no merit in this application and hence it is fit to be dismissed. In the result, this application is dismissed. rkp (Anwar Ahmad, J)