TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1036X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a settled law that if various grounds are taken by a party to assail an order and though each of them is not specifically dealt with in the judgment/order, but ultimately, the petition is dismissed or the relief is declined, it has to be assumed that the court duly considered the said pleas on the merits before declining the relief prayed for, even if not specifically elaborated in judgment/order. Merely because the said plea was not rejected in so many words in the operative para of the order dated December 7, 2002 cannot be a ground to entertain the present petition. Even otherwise, there is no illegality, infirmity or arbitrariness in the impugned order dated May 22, 2004, which would result in a serious miscarriage of justice, for this court to exercise its extraordinary powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed. - CrlMA NO 1090/05, CrlMC NO 345/05 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2011 - HIMA KOHLI MS. J. Judgment: Ms. Hima Kohli J.- 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated May 22, 2004, passed by the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, praying inter alia for recall of the summoning order and for his discharge in the proceedings arising out of the aforesaid complaint. In the said application, it was contended by the petitioner that he had made part payment of Rs. 24,17,660 to accused Nos. 3 to 6, the sellers as on September 14, 1998, and that he had also given Form 37-I to them, duly signed by him, to get the income-tax clearance but they kept deferring the matter on one pretext or the other. Since the sellers failed to perform their part of the obligations under the contract, the agreement did not fructify into a sale and later on, the petitioner came to know that accused Nos. 3 to 6 had sold the property in question to one Smt.Meena Mittal and Shri Ashok Kumar Mittal on June 5, 1996. The second argument urged on behalf of the petitioner was that the land, subject-matter of the complaint, was situated at Faridabad and hence, the Delhi court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It was also alleged that the complaint was barred by limitation. 4. The respondent/Department filed a reply to the aforesaid application and opposed the prayers made therein. Af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... os. 3 to 6 in part sale consideration, part possession of the property in question in the form of two rooms had also been delivered by accused Nos. 3 to 6 to the petitioner without obtaining a no objection from the Appropriate Authority. It is further asserted that the complaint filed by the respondent is maintainable in Delhi and merely because the property is situated in Faridabad cannot be the sole consideration to decide the question of juris-diction, more so when there is a notification issued under the Income-tax Act, which confers jurisdiction in respect of the properties situated at Faridabad on the Appropriate Authority at Delhi and also since enquiries regarding the property in question were conducted from Delhi and the office of the Appropriate Authority is situated at Delhi. 7. Counsel for the respondent further states that the powers vested in this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are extraordinary in nature and cannot be invoked by the petitioner in the facts of the present case, when he had already approached the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by filing an appropriate application, where relief as prayed for was refused, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... full opportunity to defend himself in the trial and the trial will take place in accordance with the procedure established by law. In Administrative Law by David Foulkes (7th edition), page 285, the law on the applicability of the principles of natural justice, viz., affording an opportunity of hearing at a stage anterior to the actual commencement of the proceedings before the court or tribunal has been stated as under : 'Where the administration is merely initiating a procedure or seeking to establish whether a prima facie case exists, the courts will not be likely to extend the statutory procedure at least where it gives a full opportunity to be heard later in the proceedings.'" (emphasis added) 10. In light of the aforesaid judgments, the plea taken by the petitioner regarding absence of show-cause notice is turned down. 11. On the point of absence of territorial jurisdiction in courts in Delhi to entertain the criminal complaint, it is not disputed in the present case that prior to filing the complaint, enquiries were conducted by the Department in respect of the transaction, and accused Nos. 3 to 6 were participating in such an enquiry. Further, it is, admittedly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he documents accompanying the same per se ; it has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations." 13. It is thus clear that if on a prima facie view of the averments made in the complaint filed before it, the court finds that the offence or some part of it was committed within its jurisdiction, then the complaint can be entertained by it. In the present case, the notification issued under the Income-tax Act vests jurisdiction on the Appropriate Authority at Delhi, to initiate action in respect of transactions relating to properties both at Delhi and Faridabad is also relevant. In such circumstances, merely because the property in question is situated at Faridabad would not disentitle the courts in Delhi to entertain a complaint pertaining to transfer of such a property. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the complaint is liable to be returned at the threshold, on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the courts at Delhi is therefore rejected. 14. Lastly, with regard to the submission of the counsel for the petitioner, that the objection with regard to jurisdiction of the courts at Delhi was not specifically dealt wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
