Court Lacking Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Direct Acquittal; Must Return Charge-Sheet for Presentation Before Competent Court

Complainant Smt. Rajni Jaiswal filed an FIR under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondents.

A charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Satna. The respondents objected to the territorial jurisdiction, asserting the alleged crimes occurred in Raigarh, Mumbai.

While the trial court initially rejected this objection, the Revisional Court (24th Additional Sessions Judge, Satna) subsequently ruled on 30.05.2015 that the Satna court lacked territorial jurisdiction.

Following this finding, rather than returning the charge-sheet for presentation before the correct court, the JMFC passed an order on 29.06.2015 acquitting the respondents without conducting a trial or recording evidence.

The State challenged this acquittal order under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Whether a Court that lacks territorial jurisdiction to try an offence has the legal authority to pass an order of acquittal.

The court applied the fundamental principle of criminal procedure that an order of acquittal presupposes an adjudication of guilt based on evidence adduced during a trial.

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, if a Magistrate finds they lack territorial jurisdiction to try a case initiated on a police report, the only legally permissible course is to return the police report/charge-sheet for presentation before the competent court.

A court lacking jurisdiction is considered functus officio regarding the merits and cannot render a judgment of conviction or acquittal.

The High Court reasoned that since the State did not challenge the Revisional Court’s finding regarding the lack of jurisdiction at Satna, that finding attained finality.

Consequently, the JMFC, Satna, ceased to possess the authority to enter into the merits of the prosecution.

The High Court observed that a Court without jurisdiction cannot terminate proceedings by recording an acquittal, as such an act requires a full adjudication of facts and law which the court was not empowered to perform.

The Magistrate’s decision to acquit, instead of returning the charge-sheet, was deemed a "patent jurisdictional error" that caused a failure of justice by prematurely foreclosing the prosecution without a trial by a competent forum.

The petition was allowed, and the order of acquittal dated 29.06.2015 was set aside.

The Court directed the JMFC, Satna, to return the police report and connected papers for presentation before the court with competent territorial jurisdiction.

All questions on the merits of the allegations remain open for consideration by the competent court.