Skip to content


Raja Ram Raja Babu and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1977CriLJ448
AppellantRaja Ram Raja Babu and anr.
RespondentState of U.P. and anr.
Excerpt:
- - not necessarily so, retorted the learned counsel for the applicants, because, he said, on the allegations made in the complaint itself, the offences complained of were partly committed at lucknow and partly at mirzapur, outside oudh area and, as such, the applicants were at liberty to file this application either at lucknow or at allahabad. clearly accrued to the applicants at lucknow within oudh area, inasmuch as the impugned proceedings were taken by a subordinate court there......courts thereof, shall sit at allahabad or at such other places in the united provinces as the chief justice may, with the approval of the governor of the united provinces, appoint:provided that unless the governor of the united provinces with the concurrence of the chief justice, otherwise directs, such judges of the new high court, not less than two in number, as the chief justice may, from time to time nominate, shall sit at lucknow in order to exercise in respect of cases arising in such areas in oudh, as the chief justice may direct, the jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in the new high court:provided further that the chief justice may in his discretion order that any case or class of cases arising in the said areas shall be heard at allahabad.3. their lordships.....
Judgment:
ORDER

M.B. Farooqui, J.

1. This is an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings in a criminal complaint, Jamuna Prasad v. Raja Ram and Anr., under Sections 500, 420 and 109, I.P.C. pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.

2. The learned Counsel for the opposite party raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of this application on the ground that it was filed before the Allahabad Bench and not before Lucknow Bench of the High Court, as it should have been. The objection is founded upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Nasiruddin v. S.T.A. Tribunal (AIR 1976 SC 331). In that case, the Supreme Court was called upon to interpret Paras 7 and 14 of the U.P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948. Paras 7 and 14 read thus:

7 (1) The new High Court shall have, in respect of the whole of the United Provinces, all such original, appellate and other jurisdiction as, under the Law in force immediately before the appointed day, is exercisable in respect of any part of that Province by either of the existing High Courts.

(2) The new High Court shall also have in respect of any area outside the United Provinces all such original, appellate and other jurisdiction as under the law in force immediately before the appointed day is exercisable in respect of that area by the High Court in Allahabad.

14. The new High Court, and the Judges and division Courts thereof, shall sit at Allahabad or at such other places in the United Provinces as the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Governor of the United Provinces, appoint:

Provided that unless the Governor of the United Provinces with the concurrence of the Chief Justice, otherwise directs, such Judges of the new High Court, not less than two in number, as the Chief Justice may, from time to time nominate, shall sit at Lucknow in order to exercise in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh, as the Chief Justice may direct, the jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in the new High Court:

Provided further that the Chief Justice may in his discretion order that any case or class of cases arising in the said areas shall be heard at Allahabad.

3. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court summed up the legal position emerging from these provisions in these words:

To sum up, our conclusions are as follows First, there is no permanent seat of the High Court at Allahabad. The seats at Allahabad and at Lucknow may be changed in accordance with the provisions of the Order. Second, the Chief Justice of the High Court has no power to increase or decrease the areas in Oudh from time to time. The areas in Oudh have been determined once by the Chief Justice and, therefore, there is no scope for changing the areas. Third, the Chief Justice has power under the second proviso to paragraph 14 of the Order to direct in his discretion that any case or class of cases arising in Oudh areas shall be heard at Allahabad. Any case or class of cases are those which are instituted at Lucknow. The interpretation given by the High Court that the word 'heard' confers powers on the Chief Justice to order that any case or class of cases arising in Oudh areas shall be instituted or filed at Allahabad instead of Lucknow is wrong. The word 'heard' means that cases which have already been instituted or filed at Lucknow may in the discretion of the Chief Justice under the second proviso to paragraph 14 of the Order be directed to be heard at Allahabad. Fourth, the expression 'cause of action' with regard to a civil matter means that it should be left to the litigant to institute cases at Lucknow Bench or at Allahabad Bench according to the cause of action arising wholly or in part within either of the, preas. If the cause of action arises wholly within Oudh areas then the Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction. Similarly, if the cause of action arises wholly outside the specified areas in Oudh then Allahabad will have jurisdiction. If the cause of action in part arises in the specified Oudh areas and part of the cause of action arises outside the specified areas, it will be open to the litigant to frame the case appropriately to attract the jurisdiction either at Lucknow or at Allahabad. Fifth, a criminal case arises where the offence has been committed or otherwise as provided in the Criminal Procedure Code. That will attract the jurisdiction of the Court at Allahabad or Lucknow. In some cases depending on the facts and the provisions regarding jurisdiction, it may arise in either place.

4. On these observations, there can hardly be any doubt that if the right to file an application under the Code of Criminal Procedure arises wholly in the erstwhile Oudh area, then the application must necessarily be filed before the Lucknow Bench and, unless otherwise ordered by the Chief Justice, it must also be heard and determined by the Judges sitting on that Bench. But if the right to file such application arises partly in the Oudh area and partly outside, then the application may be filed either before the Lucknow Bench or before the Allahabad Bench; and where such application is filed before the Lucknow Bench, it must be heard and determined by the Judges sitting on that Bench, unless otherwise ordered by the Chief Justice.

5. In this background, the learned Counsel for the opposite party contended that the present application should have been filed before Lucknow Bench, because, he said, the related proceedings were taken at Lucknow within the erstwhile area of Oudh. Not necessarily so, retorted the learned Counsel for the applicants, Because, he said, on the allegations made in the complaint itself, the offences complained of were partly committed at Lucknow and partly at Mirzapur, outside Oudh area and, as such, the applicants were at liberty to file this application either at Lucknow or at Allahabad.

6. The question then is whether the right to file the present application arose to the applicants wholly at Lucknow or partly at Lucknow partly at Mirzapur. In dealing with this question it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 482, Cr.P.C. Section 482, Cr.P.C. saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus, this section will be applicable when an order is made or a proceeding is taken under the Code. It necessarily follows that it is the place where the order is made or the proceeding is taken, and not the place where the act forming subject-matter of such order or proceeding was committed, that will attract the jurisdiction of the High 'Court. Conversely right to apply would accrue to the aggrieved party at the place where the order is made or the proceeding is taken and not at the place where the act forming subject-matter of the order or proceeding is committed. Accordingly, an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. would lie at Lucknow or Allahabad according as the order was made or proceeding taken at a place within Oudh area or outside such area.

7. Applying this principle to the present case, the right to file an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. clearly accrued to the applicants at Lucknow within Oudh area, inasmuch as the impugned proceedings were taken by a subordinate court there. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the present application is a case which las arisen within Oudh area and that, on the authority of law laid down by the Supreme Court, it should have been filed before the Lucknow Bench. I hold so and uphold the preliminary objection.

8. In the result, I direct that the office should transmit these papers to Lucknow Bench. The stay order shall stand vacated.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //