2004 (8) TMI 738 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenged the Judgment rejecting the prayer for quashing proceedings based on lack of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT - It is settled law that cause of action consists of bundle of facts which give cause to enforce the legal inquiry for redress in a court of law. In other words it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the allegedly affected party a right to claim relief against the opponent. It must include some act done by the latter since in the absence of such an act no cause of action would possibly accrue or would arise. The expression cause of action has acquired a judicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the proceeding including not only the alleged infraction but also the infraction coupled with the right itself. Compendiously the expression means every fact which it would be necessary for the complainant to prove if traversed in order to support his right or grievance to the judgment of the Court. Every fact which is necessary to be proved as distinguished from every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove such fact comprises in cause of action . Applying these principles the Court concluded that no part of the cause of action arose within the court s jurisdiction quashing the proceedings and allowing the appeal. In conclusion the Court held that the magistrate lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of any cause of action within the court s jurisdiction. The complaint was to be returned to the complainant for filing in the appropriate court. The appeal was allowed and the proceedings were quashed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The legality of judgment rejecting the prayer for quashing proceedings based on lack of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Details of the Judgment:
The complainant filed a complaint alleging offences under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The appellants contended that the concerned magistrate lacked jurisdiction as the alleged events occurred outside the court's jurisdiction. The High Court did not address the jurisdiction issue, stating it should be considered after a trial. The appellants argued that the cause of action did not arise within the court's jurisdiction based on the complaint's contents. The respondent argued that some offences were continuing, giving the court jurisdiction.

The Court referred to Section 177 of the Code, stating that offences should be tried where they were committed. Section 178 provides exceptions for uncertain areas, offences in multiple areas, and continuing offences. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction lies where the offence occurs. Continuing offences are those that persist until compliance. In a similar case, the Court found that the continuing offence provision applied, but in this case, the complainant had left the alleged place of offence, making the provision inapplicable.

The Court clarified that the cause of action in criminal cases refers to where the offence was committed. Cause of action includes facts giving rise to legal action. The expression "cause of action" encompasses all necessary facts for the complainant to prove their grievance. Legal dictionaries and precedents define cause of action as the factual situation entitling a party to seek judicial remedy. Applying these principles, the Court concluded that no part of the cause of action arose within the court's jurisdiction, quashing the proceedings and allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Court held that the magistrate lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of any cause of action within the court's jurisdiction. The complaint was to be returned to the complainant for filing in the appropriate court. The appeal was allowed, and the proceedings were quashed.