Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan

Facts

• The accused challenged the jurisdiction of a criminal court in Rajasthan arguing that no part of the offence was committed within its territorial limits.
• The FIR was registered in one district but the alleged criminal act had occurred in a different jurisdiction.
• The question arose whether the court where FIR was registered could proceed with the trial.

Issues

1. How is territorial jurisdiction of a criminal court determined for purposes of inquiry and trial?
2. Whether the court where FIR is registered automatically has jurisdiction for trial?

Held

• Jurisdiction of a criminal court is determined by the place where the offence is committed, not by where FIR is registered or where the accused resides.
• Under S.177 CrPC (now S.211 BNSS), the ordinary rule is that every offence shall be inquired into and tried by the court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
• Exceptions (S.178-184 CrPC / S.212-218 BNSS) apply for offences committed partly in one area and partly in another, continuing offences, and uncertain places.
• Mere registration of FIR at a particular station does not confer territorial jurisdiction on the court of that area for trial.

Ratio Decidendi

Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is a matter of substance, not procedure. A trial by a court lacking territorial jurisdiction is a nullity. The place of commission of the offence is the determinative factor.