The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Yashwant @ Jaswant

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:45132
1 MCRC-10278-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
rd
ON THE 23 OF JUNE, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 10278 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
YASHWANT @ JASWANT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Tapan Bathre - Advocate for the applicant.
ORDER
The State has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the order dated 29.06.2015 passed by
the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satna in Criminal Case No.3/2005
whereby the learned Magistrate, after holding that it lacked territorial
jurisdiction to try the matter, proceeded to acquit the respondents.
2. Briefly stated, an FIR was lodged by complainant Smt. Rajni
Jaiswal alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A of
the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
against the respondents. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed a
charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satna. During the
pendency of proceedings, the respondents raised an objection regarding
territorial jurisdiction contending that the alleged acts of cruelty and demand
of dowry had taken place at Raigarh, Mumbai, State of Maharashtra and,
therefore, the Court at Satna had no territorial jurisdiction to try the offences.
The said objection was initially rejected by the trial Court. Aggrieved
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 27-06-2026
12:07:43

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:45132
2 MCRC-10278-2016
thereby, the respondents preferred Criminal Revision No.72/2014 before the

learned 24th Additional Sessions Judge, Satna. The Revisional Court, by
order dated 30.05.2015, allowed the revision and directed the trial Court to
proceed in accordance with law after holding that it lacked territorial
jurisdiction to prosecute the respondents. Thereafter, instead of returning the
police report for presentation before the competent court, the learned Judicial
Magistrate, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2015, acquitted the
respondents without recording evidence and without conducting any trial.
3. It is pertinent to note that the State has not assailed the order dated
30.05.2015 passed by the learned Revisional Court whereby it was held that
the Court at Satna lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the case. Consequently,
the correctness or otherwise of the said finding, including the question
whether the complainant/victim could have instituted the proceedings at the
place where she had taken shelter, does not arise for consideration in the
present proceedings. The scope of the present petition is, therefore, confined
solely to examining the legality and propriety of the order dated 29.06.2015
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satna, whereby the
respondents were acquitted without trial after holding that the Court lacked
territorial jurisdiction.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State submits that an order of
acquittal can be recorded only upon adjudication of the case after trial. Once
the Court itself had found that it lacked territorial jurisdiction, it became
functus officio for the purpose of trying the matter and could neither convict
nor acquit the accused persons. It is submitted that the only legally
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 27-06-2026
12:07:43

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:45132
3 MCRC-10278-2016
permissible course was to return the charge-sheet for being presented before

the court having competent territorial jurisdiction.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of
the record, this Court finds substantial force in the submissions advanced on
behalf of the State.
6. It is well settled that an order of acquittal presupposes adjudication
of the guilt or otherwise of the accused upon consideration of the evidence
adduced during trial. An acquittal cannot be recorded merely because the
court lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the case. Once the revisional court
had held that the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satna had no territorial
jurisdiction to try the offences alleged against the respondents, the
Magistrate ceased to possess authority to enter into the merits of the
prosecution or to pass an order terminating the proceedings by recording
acquittal of the accused persons. A Court lacking jurisdiction cannot render a
judgment either of conviction or of acquittal. The proper and lawful course
available to the Magistrate was to return the police report for presentation
before the court having competent jurisdiction in accordance with law.
7. The impugned order dated 29.06.2015, whereby the respondents
have been acquitted without trial solely on the ground of lack of territorial
jurisdiction, is therefore, manifestly illegal and suffers from patent
jurisdictional error resulting in failure of justice. Permitting such an order to
stand would unjustifiably foreclose prosecution of the offences without
adjudication on merits by a competent Court.
8. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order dated 29.06.2015
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 27-06-2026
12:07:43

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:45132
4 MCRC-10278-2016
passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satna in Criminal Case

No.3/2005 is hereby set aside. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Satna is directed to return the police report/charge-sheet and all connected
papers in accordance with law for being presented before the court
possessing competent territorial jurisdiction. It is clarified that this Court has
not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations against the
respondents and all questions on merits are left open to be considered by the
competent Court.
9. Petition stands allowed, accordingly.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
mn

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 27-06-2026
12:07:43