Siv (engineer) 17 September 2010

Writ Petition on Charge Sheet

Hi, one of the High Court order on discharge says as below. Can Writ Petition seeking for returning the charge sheet and trasfer of case is valid, kindy giv eme feedback. The High Court order says below: ORDER: 1. The petitioner is a former XXXXX Government of India. Now he is accused of offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. in C.C.No.AAAA of 2008, on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Bchipally. This revision petition is sought to be filed questioning order dated 21.07.2010, passed by the lower Court in Crl.M.P.No.BBB of 2010 refusing to discharge the petitioner under Section 239 Cr.P.C. 2. Main contention of the petitioner who submitted arguments in person before this Court is that the lower Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case as no part of the cause of action took place at Hyderabad and that the de facto complainant lived with the petitioner at Bangalore and lead family life. Territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law. It is not a pure question of law. It depends upon evidence to be adduced by the prosecution in support of its case. The lower Court noticed that as per statements of witnesses recorded by the Police under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C., part of cause of action for the case arose even at Hyderabad. At any rate, for want of territorial jurisdiction, the accused person cannot be discharged. In case the lower Court finds after recording evidence that the said Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case, then it would return the charge sheet and would not discharge or acquit the accused person. 3. The petitioner contends that the police did not investigate the case properly and also by going to Bangalore. It is a matter for appreciation by the trial Court after recording the prosecution evidence including evidence of the Investigating Officer who is going to be cross-examined on that aspect. It cannot be appreciated at the stage of Section 239 Cr.P.C. 4. It is contended by the petitioner that there are neighbours at Bangalore and medical evidence to be produced from Bangalore to disprove the prosecution allegations. It is open to the petitioner to lead such evidence before the trial Court at the appropriate stage of defence evidence. Having some defence evidence for the accused, is no ground for discharge of the accused. It is a matter to be appreciated by the lower Court after defence evidence is recorded by the lower Court. 5. The lower Court after considering not only F.I.R. but also statements of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. came to the conclusion that there is legal material for framing charge against the petitioner. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the lower Court. 6. Hence, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.

Reply Follow

1 Replies

Siv (engineer) 17 September 2010

Hi,

one of the High Court order on discharge says as below. Can Writ Petition seeking for returning the charge sheet and trasfer of case is valid, kindy giv eme feedback. The High Court order says below:

ORDER:

1. The petitioner is a former XXXXX Government of India. Now he is accused of offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. in C.C.No.AAAA of 2008, on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Bchipally. This revision petition is sought to be filed questioning order dated 21.07.2010, passed by the lower Court in Crl.M.P.No.BBB of 2010 refusing to discharge the petitioner under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

2. Main contention of the petitioner who submitted arguments in person before this Court is that the lower Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case as no part of the cause of action took place at Hyderabad and that the de facto complainant lived with the petitioner at Bangalore and lead family life. Territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law. It is not a pure question of law. It depends upon evidence to be adduced by the prosecution in support of its case. The lower Court noticed that as per statements of witnesses recorded by the Police under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C., part of cause of action for the case arose even at Hyderabad. At any rate, for want of territorial jurisdiction, the accused person cannot be discharged. In case the lower Court finds after recording evidence that the said Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case, then it would return the charge sheet and would not discharge or acquit the accused person.

3. The petitioner contends that the police did not investigate the case properly and also by going to Bangalore. It is a matter for appreciation by the trial Court after recording the prosecution evidence including evidence of the Investigating Officer who is going to be cross-examined on that aspect. It cannot be appreciated at the stage of Section 239 Cr.P.C.

4. It is contended by the petitioner that there are neighbours at Bangalore and medical evidence to be produced from Bangalore to disprove the prosecution allegations. It is open to the petitioner to lead such evidence before the trial Court at the appropriate stage of defence evidence. Having some defence evidence for the accused, is no ground for discharge of the accused. It is a matter to be appreciated by the lower Court after defence evidence is recorded by the lower Court.

5. The lower Court after considering not only F.I.R. but also statements of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. came to the conclusion that there is legal material for framing charge against the petitioner. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the lower Court.

6. Hence, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.