1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.624/2009 Petitioner:- Sheikh Anees Sheikh Aslam Aged about 38 years, Occupation : Business, Resident of Near Medina Masjid, Kajipura, Post Anjangaon Surji, Taluka Anjangaon Surji, District Amravati. ...Versus... Respondent :- Omprakash Madanlal Taori Aged about 45 years, Occupation : Business Resident of Durganagar, Taluka Post Nandura, District Buldhana. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Adv. for petitioner] [Ms Geeta Bamblani, Adv. for respondent] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 02.02.2010 1. Heard. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be conferred by act of the parties nor without territorial jurisdiction the Court can entertain the complaint in accordance with Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions. 2 (i) 2006 (3) Supreme Court Cases 658 (Mosaraf Hossain Khan...Versus...Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. and others). (ii) 2009 (I) Supreme Court Cases 720 (Harman Electronics Private Limited and another...Versus...National Panasonic India Private Limited). 3. Having gone through the impugned order and having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, I find that the submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner is without any merit. In the first place when the complaint was filed way back in the year 2005 till the stage of arguments no such application for objecting the territorial jurisdiction of the Court was raised and when the trial was at the fag end for final argument the application was moved on the ground that the complaint was liable to be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. The trial Court found that from 2005 no such application was made and suddenly at the stage of final argument the application was moved. It is well settled that the Court is entitled to note conduct of the parties and proceed accordingly. The application filed at such a late stage was rightly rejected by the trial Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that summon was received on 27.9.2006 and therefore, he could not have been blamed. 5. Submission is without any merit since no explanation is tendered anywhere as to why the application for putting to challenge the jurisdiction was not filed within reasonable time thereafter. Decisions cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner have no application in the facts of the present case. I find no fault with the impugned order. In the result, I make the following order. 3 O R D E R (i) Criminal Writ petition is dismissed. (ii) The trial Court shall decide the Criminal Case No.689/2005 as early as possible and in any case within a period of one month from today. JUDGE SSW