FACTS OF THE CASE

In CRL.M.C.2757/2023, the Income Tax Office (petitioner/complainant) challenged an order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in CT Case No. 1183/2022 titled Income Tax Office vs Anil Tuteja & Ors. Under a complaint filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”), the complainant alleged offences under Sections 276C(1), 277, 278 read with Sections 278B/278E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“I.T. Act”) and Sections 120B, 191, 199, 200, 204 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”). The ACMM took partial cognizance of the complaint but returned the complaint without taking cognizance of certain offences on the ground that those offences were allegedly committed beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi courts. Challenging that part of the order, the Income Tax Office filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking stay and quashing of the return of the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction.

ISSUES INVOLVED

  1. Whether the learned ACMM erred in returning the complaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
  2. Whether the offence of criminal conspiracy and related offences under the I.T. Act and IPC can be tried by courts in Delhi when overt acts/part consequences arise within the territory of Delhi.
  3. Whether the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable despite the availability of statutory alternate remedies such as revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C.

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

The petitioner submitted that the ACMM wrongly returned the complaint instead of taking cognizance and deciding jurisdiction. It was argued that:
• The offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC is a continuing offence, and since overt acts and consequences occurred in multiple local areas, including Delhi, jurisdiction is not restricted to where the offence began.
• Statements recorded under Section 131(1A) of the I.T. Act in Delhi form part of the continuing conspiracy and associated offences, justifying trial in Delhi.
• The learned ACMM’s order interfered with the pre-cognizance stage of territorial jurisdiction which ought not to preclude taking cognizance in the first instance.
• The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable even if alternative statutory remedies exist, where justice demands intervention. 

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

• The ACMM correctly exercised its discretion in returning the complaint for offences allegedly committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi, after due inquiry.
• Section 191 Cr.P.C. confers discretion upon the magistrate to consider jurisdiction before taking cognizance, and mere recording of statements in Delhi does not confer jurisdiction.
• Criminal conspiracy and tax evasion alleged primarily pertain to acts committed in Chhattisgarh and other states, not Delhi.
• The petitioner could have availed of statutory remedies (e.g., revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C.) rather than invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C., and hence the petition reflects abuse of process. 

COURT ORDER / FINDINGS

The Delhi High Court heard the petition and exercised its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assess whether the impugned order was sustainable in law. The Court examined principles of territorial jurisdiction under Sections 178 and 179 Cr.P.C., Supreme Court precedents on continuing offences, and the scope of conspiracy prosecutions. The Court considered whether taking cognizance first, before a finding on jurisdiction, was appropriate and whether acts committed in Delhi (such as statements under Section 131(1A) I.T. Act) can constitute part of a continuing offence attracting jurisdiction of Delhi courts. The Court also addressed the maintainability of a Section 482 petition in the context of available statutory remedies. (Detailed findings and conclusion require full judgment text beyond the available extract.)

IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION

• Territorial Jurisdiction: Territorial jurisdiction of criminal courts is governed by Sections 178 and 179 Cr.P.C., which allow inquiry and trial where an offence is committed, partly in one area and partly in another or where overt acts in a conspiracy occur across jurisdictions.
• Continuing Offence and Conspiracy: A criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC is a continuing offence, and courts can take cognizance where any constituent overt act or consequence has occurred, including where statements have been recorded.
• Section 482 Cr.P.C. Maintainability: The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process even where alternate remedies exist, subject to exceptional circumstances.

SECTIONS INVOLVED

• Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Inherent powers of High Court to make orders to prevent abuse of process of court.
• Section 200 Cr.P.C. – Examination of witness on complaint.
• Sections 120B, 191, 199, 200, 204 IPC – Criminal conspiracy and related offences.
• Sections 276C(1), 277, 278, 278B, 278E I.T. Act – Evasion of tax and abetment of false returns.
• Sections 178 & 179 Cr.P.C. – Territorial jurisdiction provisions.     

Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/59408012024CRLMM27572023_160522.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.