"Territorial Jurisdiction in Criminal Courts and Forum-Shopping Concerns"
Territorial Jurisdiction
the geographic authority of a court to hear a case, determined by where the offence occurred or where the accused resides.
Cognisance
the formal act of a court acknowledging an offence and deciding to proceed with the case.
India's criminal justice system is governed by a triad of foundational statutes: the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. With the passage of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), these three statutes have been replaced, though the underlying procedural architecture — including the principle of territorial jurisdiction — remains substantially intact. Territorial jurisdiction is a foundational concept in criminal procedure: it determines which court has the authority to take cognisance of an offence, issue summons, and conduct trial. Without strict enforcement of jurisdictional rules, the judicial system becomes vulnerable to manipulation by litigants who strategically choose a court geographically distant from the accused or the alleged offence.
The principle of territorial jurisdiction in criminal matters is rooted in the idea that justice should be administered closest to where the alleged wrong occurred — where witnesses are available, where evidence is located, and where the community most directly affected by the offence resides. The CrPC (now BNSS) has always required that a Magistrate possess territorial competence before taking cognisance of an offence on a complaint. This is not a mere technicality; it is a structural safeguard against the misuse of judicial process as an instrument of harassment.
Section 223 of the BNSS (corresponding to the earlier CrPC provisions on jurisdiction) opens with the phrase 'A Magistrate having jurisdiction', making territorial competence a threshold condition before a Magistrate may take cognisance of an offence on a complaint. Cognisance — the formal act of a court acknowledging that an offence has been committed and deciding to proceed — cannot be validly taken by a court that lacks territorial nexus to the offence. This means the place where the offence was committed, where its consequences were felt, or where the accused ordinarily resides can all be relevant connecting factors, but the court must establish at least one such nexus.
Forum-shopping refers to the practice of a complainant deliberately filing a case in a court that is geographically inconvenient for the accused, with the intent to harass rather than to genuinely seek justice. …
With reference to India, consider the following statements:
1.Judicial custody means an accused is in the custody of the concerned magistrate and such accused is locked up in a police station lock-up, not in jail.
2.During judicial custody, the police officer in charge of the case, without the approval of the court, cannot interrogate the suspect.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Consider the following statements:
Statement-I: In India, prisons are managed by State Governments with their own rules and regulations for the day-to-day administration of prisons.
Statement-II: In India, prisons are governed by the Prisons Act, 1894 which expressly kept the subject of prisons in the control of Provincial Governments.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
A legislation which confers on the executive or administrative authority an unguided and uncontrolled discretionary power in the matter of application of law violates which one of the following Articles of the Constitution of India?
With reference to territorial jurisdiction in Indian criminal courts, consider the following statements:
1.Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) requires a Magistrate to have territorial competence before taking cognisance of an offence on a complaint.
2.A Magistrate may take cognisance of an offence even without territorial jurisdiction if the complaint discloses a prima facie case.
3.The High Court can quash proceedings initiated by a Magistrate who lacked territorial jurisdiction.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Which of the following best describes 'forum-shopping' in the context of Indian criminal law?
Consider the following statements regarding 'cognisance' in Indian criminal procedure:
1.Cognisance is taken when a Magistrate applies judicial mind to the facts of an offence with a view to proceeding in the matter.
2.Cognisance can be taken by a Magistrate only after the police file a charge-sheet.
3.Territorial jurisdiction is a precondition that must be satisfied before a Magistrate takes cognisance on a complaint.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Assertion (A): A Magistrate who issues summons to an accused without having territorial jurisdiction over the alleged offence renders those summons legally vulnerable to challenge.
Reason (R): Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) requires that a Magistrate must have jurisdiction before taking cognisance of an offence on a complaint.
Which one of the following is correct?
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account