Ananchal Chambyal And Others vs Irfan Rashid And Others on 9 July, 2025

Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench

Ananchal Chambyal And Others vs Irfan Rashid And Others on 9 July, 2025

Author: Vinod Chatterji Koul

Bench: Vinod Chatterji Koul

     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

1
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

2
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,

3
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

4
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

5
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

6
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.

7

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.

8

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.

9

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

10
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.

11

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

12
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

13
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

14
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

15
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 16