IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-31924 of 2008 (O/M). Date of Decision : August 07, 2009. Amit Kumar son of Shri Mohan Lal, resident of Bhajan K Bag, Bharawas Gate, Rewari, District Rewari (Haryana). ...... Petitioners. Versus. State of Haryana, and others. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. N.S. Sekhawat, Advocate, for the petitioner . Mr. Yash Pal Malik, A.A.G. Haryana, for the respondent-State. Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate, for the respondents No. 2 to 5. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. The present petition has been preferred, challenging the order dated 29.04.2008 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, vide which the Trial Court has held that the Court at Rewari, cannot entertain the matter for want of jurisdiction and thereafter, the revision preferred against the said order, stands rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, vide order dated 22.09.2008 (Annexure-P-3). Counsel for the petitioner contends that the offences, which are alleged to have been committed by respondents, are under Sections 406/420/464/465/182/195/211/324/341/506/34 I.P.C. in the complaint preferred by the petitioner. He contends that offences under Sections 406/420 I.P.C. are clearly made out against respondents within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Rewari. He submits that the said offences were Criminal Misc. No. M-31924 of 2008. committed by respondents at Rewari, as it has come on record that respondents had criminal designs from very outset and they wanted to betray and cheat the petitioner by craving for his money. The criminal and dishonest behaviour of the respondents could be gauged at the very outset. The compromise, which has been entered into between the parties at Rewari was that if the petitioner would pay Rs. 5.50 lakhs to respondent No. 2, the matter would be settled. He further contends that money was also paid at Rewari. Despite having received the said amount, respondents have backed out of the compromise and, therefore, has committed an offence, which was within the jurisdiction of the Court at Rewari. He further submits that provisions as contained in Sections 178/181 (4) Cr.P.C., which deal with territorial jurisdiction, confer right upon the Court in a case even if a part of the offence was committed by the accused in the territorial jurisdiction, where the complainant prefers to proceed against respondents. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Asit Bhattacharjee Versus M/s Hanuman Parsad Ojha and others, 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 177. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand, submits that the Courts below have passed well considered orders, dealing with the territorial jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the matter. He, however, is unable to contradict the submission of counsel for the petitioner that the compromise was entered into between the parties at Rewari, and the amount, which is alleged to have been paid to the respondents had changed hands there. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. -2- Criminal Misc. No. M-31924 of 2008. In the light of the order, which I propose to pass, I do not intend to go into merit of the case and would rather restrict this order only to the aspect of territorial jurisdiction as learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has held in his order dated 29.04.2008 (Annexure-P-1) that the Court at Rewari, cannot entertain the matter for want of jurisdiction and on that account, the complaint has been dismissed. In the light of the judgment, which has been referred to by counsel for the petitioner with no rebuttal on the part of counsel for the respondents, the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Rewari, has been established as the compromise and payment of money was at Rewari. The judgment relied upon by counsel for the petitioner also holds that where fraudulent representation in respect of commission of an offence under Section 420 I.P.C. has been made out, the same would give rise to the prosecution of the accused in the Court in the jurisdiction of which even if some part of the said offence stands committed. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. It is, however, clarified that it would be open to the Trial Court to consider the complaint on merits with regard to sufficiency of ground(s) for proceeding in the matter for taking cognizance of the alleged offence in the complaint. No opinion whatsoever has been expressed on merits of the complaint and preliminary evidence, which has been led by the complainant. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE August 07, 2009. sjks. -3-