Complaint Returned for Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction Does Not Erase Earlier Evidence or Require Fresh Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Name: Rajbir Dahiya v. Parveen Kumar

Date of Judgment: 25 May 2026

Citation: CRM-M No.19220 of 2018

Bench: Justice Mandeep Pannu

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that return of a complaint under Section 201 Cr.P.C. on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction does not wipe out the proceedings already conducted or render evidence recorded earlier non-est. The Court held that where a complaint is merely returned for presentation before a competent Court, the proceedings are to continue from the stage at which they stood and a fresh trial or fresh recording of evidence is not required.

Summary: The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenged the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby the revisional court had set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class directing the complainant to lead fresh preliminary evidence after presentation of the complaint before a Court having territorial jurisdiction.

The dispute arose from a complaint under Sections 406, 420 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC initially filed before the Court at Bahadurgarh against three accused persons. After discharge of the accused and subsequent remand proceedings, charges were framed against the present petitioner and the matter progressed substantially, including recording of prosecution evidence, cross-examination and defence evidence.

However, at the stage of final arguments, the Judicial Magistrate at Bahadurgarh examined the issue of territorial jurisdiction and held that no part of the cause of action had arisen within its jurisdiction. Accordingly, the complaint was returned under Section 201 Cr.P.C. for presentation before the competent Court at Faridabad. The order was subsequently affirmed by the revisional court as well as by the High Court.

Upon presentation of the complaint before the Court at Faridabad, the complainant sought continuation of proceedings on the basis of the complaint and evidence already recorded. However, the Magistrate treated the matter as a fresh complaint and directed the complainant to lead preliminary evidence afresh under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

The revisional court reversed that order and held that there was no necessity for a de novo trial. Challenging that decision, the petitioner argued before the High Court that once the complaint had been returned by a Court lacking territorial jurisdiction, all proceedings before such Court became legally non-existent and no reliance could be placed on earlier evidence. It was also argued that Section 326 Cr.P.C. was wrongly invoked because the Court at Faridabad was not a successor Court.

The High Court rejected these submissions and held that the complaint itself had merely been directed to be returned for presentation before the competent Court and the earlier proceedings had never been annulled or set aside on merits. The Court observed that the spirit of the earlier judicial orders was continuation of proceedings before the Court having competent jurisdiction rather than institution of a completely fresh complaint.

The Court further clarified that the complainant had not instituted an independent fresh complaint but had only sought presentation and continuation of the same complaint before the competent Court. Consequently, the Magistrate at Faridabad had erred in assuming that fresh cognizance and recording of evidence under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was necessary.

The Court also held that return of a complaint on territorial jurisdiction grounds cannot automatically obliterate evidence already recorded where such proceedings had never been set aside by a superior Court. It emphasized that the object of Section 201 Cr.P.C. is merely to enable presentation before the proper forum and not to nullify proceedings already conducted.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. The trial court was directed to continue proceedings from the stage at which the complaint stood when it was returned by the Court at Bahadurgarh and to make efforts for expeditious disposal of the matter.