Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts in Inquiries and Trial

S.197-222 BNSS governs which court is competent to inquire into and try which offence. Jurisdiction is determined by (a) the nature and gravity of the offence, (b) the place of commission, and (c) the identity of the accused. Proceedings before a court lacking jurisdiction are a nullity.

flowchart TD
  O(["Offence to be tried<br/>(S.21 + First Schedule)"])
  O --> D{Punishable with?}
  D -->|"Death / life /<br/>> 7 yrs"| SES["Court of Session"]
  D -->|"3 to 7 yrs"| JM1["Judicial Magistrate<br/>First Class"]
  D -->|"< 3 yrs"| JM2["Any Magistrate"]
  O --> N["Determined also by place of<br/>commission (S.197) & identity of accused"]

Legal Framework

Why: Jurisdiction rules prevent forum shopping, ensure convenient trial, protect against harassment by distant prosecution, and ensure the court trying the case has adequate sentencing power.

Example: A pickpocket operates in Mumbai local trains. He picks a wallet on a train travelling between Dadar and Andheri. Which court has jurisdiction? Under S.197 BNSS (ordinary rule: where offence committed), both Dadar and Andheri courts qualify because the offence was committed during transit between two jurisdictions. Under S.213 (continuing offence/journey), the court of any place through which the train passed has jurisdiction. But a court in Pune where neither the accused lives nor the train passed has no jurisdiction even if the victim lives there. Jurisdiction follows the offence, not the people.

Rules Determining Court of Trial

By Gravity of Offence:

Committal to Sessions (S.232):

When a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the Magistrate shall commit the case to that court. The Magistrate's role is limited to:

1. Taking cognizance
2. Supplying copies of charge sheet and documents to accused (S.230)
3. Committing the case

By Place of Commission:

General rule (S.197): Every offence tried by the court within whose jurisdiction it was committed. Exceptions apply per S.198-205 for continuing offences, journey offences, and composite transactions.

By Identity of Accused:

Irregular Proceedings (S.506-512)

Why: Criminal proceedings are complex; minor procedural defects should not enable a guilty person to escape on technicalities. The test is always: was there a failure of justice?

Recall Check

1. Which offences must be tried exclusively by the Court of Session?
2. What is the Magistrate's role in cases triable by Sessions?
3. When does a procedural irregularity become a jurisdictional error?

Key Cases

Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan (2012) Ajay Kumar Parmar v State of Rajasthan 2012
Issue: Whether trial by a court without jurisdiction can be cured as mere irregularity.
Rule: Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is not an irregularity but a fundamental defect rendering proceedings void.
Held: If a Magistrate tries an offence exclusively triable by Sessions Court, it is a nullity not curable under S.460-466 CrPC (now S.506-512 BNSS). However, if a Magistrate tries an offence within their competence but with procedural error (e.g., wrong mode of trial), it is an irregularity curable if no prejudice results.

Distinctions

Flashcards