IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9696 of 2010 1. MD.NAUSHAD ALI, SON OF MD. YUNUS, RESIDENT OF THE HOUSE NO. 121/1 KALYAN PRASAD GALI, DUMRAON, BUXAR, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF G.N. INDIA GAS (PVT.) LTD. HAVING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT 301, VERMA KARPURA HOUSE, S.P. VERMA ROAD, PATNA-1. 2. MD. YUNUS, SON OF GUL MOHAMMAD, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 121/1, KALYAN PRASAD GALI, DUMRAON, BUXAR, FINANCER OF G.N. INDIA GAS (PVT) LTD. HAVING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT 301, VERMA KARPURA HOUSE, S.P. VERMA ROAD, PATNA-1. 3. MASIHUZAMAN, SON OF MD. YUNUS, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 121/1 KALYAN PRASAD GALI, DUMRAON, BUXAR, DIRECTOR OF G.N. INDIA GAS (PVT.) LTD., HAVING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT 301, VERMA KARPURA HOUSE, S.P. VERMA ROAD, PATNA-1. ---- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MD. ASLAM RAZA, SON OF MD. MASLAUDDIN FARIDI, RESIDENT OF AWARPUL, P.S. ARAH NAGAR THANA, DISTRICT BHOJPUR. ---- OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioners :- Mr. Sakil Ahmad Khan, Sr. Advocate Mr. J.P. Kishore, Advocate For the O.P. :- None For the State :- Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ----------- 2 26.4.2010 Heard the parties. This application has been filed challenging the order dated 19.2.2010 by which the complaint petition filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 has been sent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ara (Bhojpur) for investigation and registration of a case under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The argument on behalf of the petitioner is that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ara (Bhojpur) does not have the power to send the complaint case for registration in view of the fact that the Court at Ara does not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear this matter. Referring to Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, learned counsel submits that it provides that “Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned.” There is no doubt about the fact 2 that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ara has power of taking cognizance under the offences alleged in the Complaint which are Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code. The question of jurisdiction can only be raised by the accused petitioners after charge sheet/final form has been submitted in a case. It should be raised before the Court below before it is raised in the High Court as the competent Court would be in a position to examine from the Complaint/FIR and the material that come on record, whether in fact the Court at Ara would have the jurisdiction to hear this matter or not. The question of territorial jurisdiction, in my opinion, has been raised at a very pre mature and as such I dismiss this application. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)