1 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR … CRM(M) no.491/2022 Reserved on: 04.03.2025 Pronounced on: 09.07.2025 Ananchal Chambyal and others …….Petitioner(s) Through: Mr Vishal Sharma, DSGI with Mr…….. Versus Irfan Rashid and others ……Respondent(s) Through: Mr Muzaffar Hamid Bhat, Advocate for respondent no.1 Ms. Rekha Wangnoo, GA for respondent no.2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE JUDGEMENT 1. Complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure titled Irfan Rashid v. Ananchal Chambyal and others.”, and the order dated 27th August 2022, passed thereupon by the court of 2nd Additional Munsiff/Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Srinagar (Trial Court) are sought to be quashed in this petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. I have gone through the record on the file. 3. A complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. came to be filed by respondent no.1 before the Trial Court, stating therein that he is working in the Department of Posts, Srinagar, Postal Division, as the 2 Postal Assistant since 2011. The posts of Inspector were notified by the Postal Directorate. He responded thereto. He states in his complaint that in terms of the notification, the examination of the applicants was to be conducted at the Circle Headquarters only and in respect of J&K Postal Circle, the circle headquarter was Srinagar, but the examination centre was kept at Jammu which was clear violation of Postal Directorate Orders. He was to appear in examination on 25th and 26th July 2022 at Jammu centre. Earlier before conducting examination, respondent no.1 through the All-India Postal Employees Union approached administration to conduct the examination as per notification but all in vain. In terms of the schedule, the examination was conducted in three separate rooms on the given dates instead of one single hall under the surveillance of CCTV cameras as required under the departmental rules. It has also been alleged by respondent no.1 in his complaint that in the examination hall the candidates appearing in the exam adopted the unfair means and copying during the period of all four papers in front of the CCTV cameras and invigilator without any fear and hesitation, and it was obvious from the facts appearing in the examination house that some candidates were acting in league with the invigilator. The oral complaint about the unfair means in the examination hall was brought to the notice of the invigilator as well as the DAP, Jammu, who was outside the examination hall. On 26th July 2022, the invigilator was replaced by ADM, PLI, but of no avail. Respondent no.1 also saw the unfair means adopted by the candidates in front of ADPS, Staff CPMG J&K Circle, Jammu, who visited the examination rooms. All the invigilators, clerks, MTS, were selected 3 from Jammu Division and none from Srinagar, Baramulla, Leh and from other Divisions. After completion of exam, respondent no.1 came to know that there was rampant unfair means and copying adopted during the whole course in front of CCTV cameras installed. It is also alleged in the complaint that respondent no.1 made a complaint before SSPO, Srinagar, which was addressed to Secretary Posts, DG Posts and Chief Post Master General, J&K Circle, through proper channel in which respondent no.1 prayed for investigation by referring CCTV footage. He, being also the Divisional Secretary, All India Postal Employees Union, Srinagar Division, J&K Circle, filed a complaint via email to Circle Secretary, AIPEU, J&K Circle, for taking up the matter with CPMG, J&K Circle, Jammu. It is also stated by respondent no.1 in his complaint that the matter was brought to the notice of CPMG, J&K Circle, Jammu, on 30th June 2022 and also with General Secretary, All India Postal Employees Union Group C, New Delhi, who in turn took up the matter with Secretary Posts for fair investigation. Respondent no.1 through RTI applied for the CCTV footage and the information regarding conduct of the examination and was provided only with information but no CCTV footage was given to him. A complaint was also filed by him before the Crime Branch, Srinagar, and Anticorruption Bureau, Srinagar, but of no avail. The matter was taken before Superintendent of both the organisations but again of no avail. 4. Trial Court after it heard the arguments of counsel for respondent no.1 and went through contents of application, stated that matter needs to be investigated/enquired into before issuing any process and postponed issuance of process, by entrusting the matter to SHO P/S Crime Branch, 4 Srinagar, for enquiry/ investigation in terms of Section 202 Cr.P.C. and submitting a detailed report. The order impugned is reproduced hereunder: “1. The instant application U/s 156(3) Cr.P. C. has been presented by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant after the same has been assigned to this Court by the Court of Worthy Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar for disposal under law. However, from the averments and contents of the application, this court treats this application as a complaint U/s 200 Cr. P. C. Office report was called and the complaint was found in order. Let the same be diarized in the concerned register. The statement of the complainant could not be recorded and same is deferred for time being. 2. Heard arguments and perused the contents of the application. From the perusal of the material on record, I am satisfied that in order to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the matter in hand, the same needs to be investigated/enquired into before issuing any process in the matter against the non-applicants/accused persons. As such the issuance of process in the matter is postponed and matter is entrusted to the SHO P/S Crime Branch, Srinagar for enquiry/investigation in terms of section 202 Cr.P. C and for submission of a detailed report before this court by or before the next date of hearing, which is fixed on 14.09.2022. 3. Let a copy of this order along with a copy of the application be forwarded to the Investigation Officer (SHO P/S Crime Branch, Srinagar) for compliance. 4. Put up for further proceedings on 14.09.2022.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the plain reading of impugned complaint would reflect falsification and concoction. Respondent no.1 in his complaint has admitted conduct of examination at Jammu, in which he also appeared and, therefore, if any cause has accrued to him that has arisen within the limits of District Jammu. Nevertheless, he chose to make a complaint, over which Trial Court made a gross error by taking cognizance issuing direction to SHO P/S Crime Branch, Srinagar, under Section 202 Cr.P.C. to enquire/ investigate the matter without having territorial and legal jurisdiction to try, entertain and adjudicate upon the said matter. He also states that in total 43 candidates appeared in the examination but no complaint about any discrepancy in the examination has been made or brought into the 5 notice of the petitioners or any other authority qua the allegations made by respondent no.1 in his complaint and that no books or mobile phones were permitted inside the examination hall, so no question of cheating or adopting the unfair means arise. Question papers of the candidates were in four different sets and each candidate was given different set of question paper so that the candidates may not share their answers with each other so as to avoid any chance of cheating and the entire exam was conducted under the complete surveillance of CCTV cameras. The entire exam was conducted under the strict supervision of the senior officers of the rank of DPS (Nodal Officer), Director of Postal Accounts (Vigilance Officer), SSP, AD (Recruitment) so question of having any unfair means by the candidates does not arise at all. The conduct of the examinations and the similar administrative matters come under the purview of the Departmental Enquiry and are not normally dealt with by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Respondent no.1 bypassed the said procedure and the grievance redressal mechanism and opted to approach the Trial Court by filing a complaint which tantamount to gross abuse of process of law and should not be encouraged. The complaint as well as the cognizance order dated 27th August 2022, on the face of it, do not disclose commission of any offence against the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also stated that provisions of Section 14 Cr.P.C. prescribe local jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate and in the present case, Trial Court has passed impugned order beyond its territorial jurisdiction as entire cause of action, if at all arisen, has accrued within territorial limits of District Jammu. He also refers to 6 Section 156 Cr.P.C. which describes power of police officer to investigate cognizable case and would contend that Trial Court has again passed impugned order beyond its territorial jurisdiction; even SHO P/S Crime Branch, Srinagar, has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter. Next, he makes reference to Section 177 Cr.P.C., which describes the ordinary place of inquiry and trial, to contend that every offence is ordinarily to be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. He also invites attention of this Court to provisions of Section 179 Cr.P.C., which describe the offence triable where act is done or consequences ensues. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and another v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and others, 2012 (10) SCC 517; Lalita Kumari v. Govt of U.P. and others AIR 2014 SC 187; Chairman All Railway Rec. Board and another v. Shyam Kumar and others, 2010 (6) SCC 614; Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 569. He has also made reference to Notification/S.O. 232 dated 9th May 2022 issued by Home Department, UT of J&K. 7. The question that would arise for consideration of this Court is as to whether the Trial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed before it by respondent no.1 and whether the Crime Branch, Srinagar, could enquire/investigate such matter. Admittedly, whatever is stated in the complaint is that occurrence in respect of which the complaint has been filed before the Trial Court had taken place and happened in Jammu, while the complainant-respondent herein had also appeared in the examination at Jammu and it is at that place with respect whereof 7 respondent no.1 alleges that the persons who appeared had resorted to copying regarding which the complaint was made but no action was taken. 8. Section 14 of Cr.P.C. reads as under: “14. Local Jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrates. (1) Subject to the control of the High Court, the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, from time to time, define the local limits of the areas within which the Magistrates appointed under section 11 or under section 13 may exercise all or any of the powers with which they may respectively be invested under this Code : Provided that the Court of a Special Judicial Magistrate may hold its sitting at any place within the local area for which it is established. (2) Except as otherwise provided by such definition, the jurisdiction and powers of every such Magistrate shall extend throughout the district. (3) Where the local jurisdiction of a Magistrate, appointed under section 11 or section 13 or section 18, extends to an area beyond the district, or the metropolitan area, as the case may be, in which he ordinarily holds Court, any reference in this Code to the Court of Session, Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall, in relation to such Magistrate, throughout the area within his local jurisdiction, be construed, unless the context otherwise requires, as a reference to the Court of Session, Chief Judicial Magistrate, or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, exercising jurisdiction in relation to the said district or metropolitan area.” 9. Section 14 Cr.P.C. outlines geographical and subject-matter jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrates. Essentially it specifies territorial limits within which a Judicial Magistrate can preside over cases and make legal judgments. It ensures that cases are handled by appropriate authorities, facilitating a structured and organized legal system. The main purpose behind defining local jurisdiction is to streamline legal proceedings because by assigning specific regions to Judicial Magistrates, legal system can manage caseloads more effectively, ensuring timely and localized justice. This helps reduce burden on higher courts and ensures that cases are resolved promptly within local context. 8 10. Where should be place or inquiry or trial, is specified in Section 177 Cr.P.C. which reads as under:- “Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.” 11. Section 177 Cr.P.C. prescribes the place of trial. Ordinarily the place of trial shall be ‘the court in whose jurisdiction the offence occurs”. It specifies that every offence should ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. The principle is foundational to confirm that justice is administered efficiently and that proceedings are accessible to relevant parties. When a crime is committed and reported, the initial jurisdiction is determined based on location of crime. The police from relevant jurisdiction initiate investigation and the case is subsequently taken up by the court within the same jurisdiction. 12. Section 179 Cr.P.C. deals with offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues. It provides that when an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensured. 13. Section 180 deals with the place of trial where an act is an offence by reason of its relation to any other act which is also an offence or which would be an offence if the doer were capable of committing an offence, the first-mentioned offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction either act was done. 9 14. Section 181 Cr.P.C. delineated the jurisdictional rules for the trial of certain offences. These guidelines ensure clarity and fairness in the administration of justice. Section 181 specifically addresses the place of trial for certain offences. This section is vital for ensuring that the trials are conducted in the appropriate judicial settings thereby upholding the principles of natural justice. The provision also helps in minimizing jurisdictional conflict. It in clear cut terms that any offence of being a thug, or murder committed by a thug, of dacoity, of dacoity with murder, of belonging to a gang of dacoits, or of escaping from custody, may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the accused person is found. Any offence of theft, extortion or robbery may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the stolen property which is the subject of the offence was possessed by any person committing it or by any person who received or retained such property knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen property. Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person. Any offence which includes possession of stolen property may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or stolen property was possessed by any person who received or retained it knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen property. 10 15. Section 182 relates to offences committed through written communications, such as letters, telegrams, or other similar means. It says that if a person commits an offence through a letter, telegram or any other similar written communication, the offence is deemed to have been committed at the place where the letter, telegram or communication is sent or delivered. Section 183 Cr.P.C. states that when an offence is committed whilst the person by or against whom or the thing in respect of which the offence is committed is in the course of performing a journey or voyage, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court through or into whose jurisdiction that person or thing passed in the course of that journey or voyage. 16. Section 187 relates to power to issue summons or warrant for offence committed beyond local jurisdiction. It provides that when a Magistrate of the first class sees reason to believe that any person within his local jurisdiction has committed outside such jurisdiction (whether within or outside India) an offence which cannot, under the provisions of sections 177 to 185, both inclusive, or any other law for the time being in force, be inquired into or tried within such jurisdiction but is under some law for the time being in force triable in India, such Magistrate may inquire into the offence as if it had been committed within such local jurisdiction and compel such person in the manner hereinbefore provided to appear before him, and send such person to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to inquire into or try such offence, or, if such offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and such person is ready and willing to give bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate acting under this section, take a bond with or without sureties for his 11 appearance before the Magistrate having such jurisdiction. It also provides that when there are more Magistrates than one having such jurisdiction and the Magistrate acting under this section cannot satisfy himself as to the Magistrate to or before whom such person should be sent or bound to appear, the case shall be reported for the orders of the High Court. The jurisdiction refers to the authority granted to legal bodies to hear and make decisions on legal matters. Within the context of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the jurisdiction can be categorized into various types including territorial, subject-matter and pecuniary jurisdiction. These classifications are crucial in determining the appropriate forum for legal proceedings. In criminal law, jurisdiction ensures that cases are tried in the correct geographical location and by the appropriate judicial authority. The relevance extends to the legal proceedings under Section 187 Cr.P.C., where the provision bridges the gap between the different jurisdictions, allowing for the effective administration of the justice irrespective of where the offence occurred. The scope of Section 187 covers the legal provisions which empower the magistrates to issue summons or warrants for offences committed outside their jurisdiction. The magistrates play a crucial role in implementation of Section 187 Cr.P.C. Their duty included evaluating complaints, issuing summons or warrants and ensuring that legal processes are followed correctly. The responsibilities of the magistrates under Section 187 Cr.P.C. also involve safeguarding the rights of the accused, ensuring that due process is followed and maintaining the integrity of the legal proceedings. 12 17. In the backdrop of above procedural provisions, it may be mentioned here that Section 177 unambiguously states that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. The offence, by virtue of the definition ascribed to the word by Section 2(n) of the Code of Criminal Procedure means any act or omission made punishable by any law. The territorial jurisdiction of a court with regard to criminal offence would be decided on the basis of place of occurrence of the incident and not on the basis of where the complaint was filed and the mere fact that FIR was registered in a particular State is not the sole criterion to decide that cause of action has arisen even partly within the territorial limits or jurisdiction of another court. the venue of enquiry or trial is primarily to be determined by the averments contained in the complaint or charge sheet. Thus, Section 177 Cr.P.C. provides that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by the court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Reference can be made to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Asit Bhattacharjee v. Hanuman Prasad Ojha and others (2007) 5 SCC 786. The Supreme Court referred to subsection (1) of Section 156 to say that it empowers the in-charge of a Police Station to investigate any cognizable offence which Court having jurisdiction over the local area within its limit or to try under the provisions of Chapter XIII, the power of the Magistrate to order such an investigation is vested in him who can take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Chapter XIII provides for jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in inquiries and trials. Section 177 provides that every offence shall 13 ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 178 provides for place of inquiry or trial. It provides that (a) when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed; or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another; or (c) when an offence is a continuing one and continues to be committed in more local areas than one; or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, that it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. It has also been observed that Section 181 provides for place of trial in case of certain offences. Sub-section (4) of Section 181 was introduced in the Code in 1973 as there existed conflict in the decisions of various High Courts as regards commission of offence of criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust and with that end in view, it was provided that such an offence may be inquired into or tried by the Court within whose jurisdiction the accused was bound by law or by contract to render accounts or return the entrusted property, but failed to discharge that obligation. It was also stated by the Supreme Court that the above provisions clearly suggested that even if a part of cause of action had arisen, the police station concerned situated within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance under Section 190(1) of the Code would have the jurisdiction to make investigation. Then the Supreme Court observed that the necessary ingredients for proving a criminal offence must exist in a complaint petition. Such ingredients of offence must be referable to the places where the cause of action in regard to commission of offence has arisen. A cause of action as understood in its ordinary 14 parlance may be relevant for exercise of jurisdiction under Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India but its definition stricto sensu may not be applicable for the purpose of bringing home a charge of criminal offence. The application filed by the appellant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. disclosed commission of a large number of offences. The fact that major part of the offences took place outside the jurisdiction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta is not in dispute. But, even if a part of the offence committed by the respondents related to the appellant-Company was committed within the jurisdiction of the said Court, the High Court of Allahabad should not have interfered in the matter. 18. Insofar as present case is concerned, alleged offence has not been committed within local jurisdiction of Trial Court. Thus, Trial Court ought not to have entertained complaint in question muchless asked conduct of inquiry/investigation. In the case in hand, it is admitted case of petitioner that test/examination was conducted at Jammu, in which he appeared. He alleges that in the examination hall, which was located/ situated in Jammu District, candidates appearing in the exam adopted unfair means and copying. So, alleged offence has occurred and committed at Jammu. In such circumstances, it is the court(s) at Jammu District, in whose local jurisdiction alleged offence is to be ordinarily inquired into and tried. 19. It cannot be heard saying from respondent no.1 that it is uncertain in which area(s) alleged offence(s) was/were committed or that the alleged offence(s) was/were partly committed in Jammu and party in Kashmir. So, it is clear from the above that Trial Court who has entertained the 15 complaint and directed enquiry/investigation to be conducted was lacking in jurisdiction. Therefore, the order impugned passed by the Trial Court as well as complaint entertained by it was without jurisdiction. 20. The Trial court has committed another illegality by directing SHO police Crime Branch Srinagar to hold enquiry despite the fact that the Crime Branch Srinagar has no territorial jurisdiction as is clear from the fact that the enquiry which was directed to be conducted by the SHO, police station Crime Branch, Srinagar, is alleged to have happened in Jammu which is beyond its jurisdiction. 21. S.O. 232, Notification 9th of May, 2022, declares the wings of the Crime Branch, J&K, as police stations. S. O. has declared six wings of Crime Branch J&K as police stations which are as under: i. Special Crime Wing (SCW), Jammu; ii. Special Crime Wing (SCW), Srinagar; iii. Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Jammu; iv. Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Srinagar; v. Cyber Crime Investigation Centre for Excellence (CICE), Jammu and vi. Cyber Crime Investigation Centre for Excellence (CICE), Srinagar. 22. As per the said Notification, the said police stations have to investigate offences specified against each in the corresponding column (3) of annexure to the said Notification within territorial jurisdiction of their respective units at the divisional level. S. O. 232, provides for declaration of police stations of the Wings specified in the said S. O. as police stations and the said police stations of the Crime Branch have to investigate the cases specified in the Annexure to the said S. O. in 16 column (3) and within their jurisdiction. So far as the allegations contained in the complaint are concerned, those do not fall within the purview of the jurisdiction of Crime Branch Srinagar to investigate, even, if it had been within its powers, still the Crime Branch, Srinagar, was lacking in territorial jurisdiction to enquire/investigate. 23. It appears that Trial Court without bothering to go through the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, providing for place of trial enquiry and also jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate, has exceeded its territorial jurisdiction in entertaining the complaint and directing SHO P/S Crime Branch, Srinagar, to enquire/investigate. The order impugned passed by the Trial Court is, thus, not only bad in law but without jurisdiction. The Trial Court has by entertaining the complaint and passing the order impugned exceeded its jurisdiction. Therefore, impugned order of entertaining the complaint as well as order passed by it being without jurisdiction is quashed. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 09.07.2025 ‘Imtiyaz’ Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No. Imtiyaz Ul Gani I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 18.07.2025 14:58