The Allahabad High Court, in a notable judgment delivered by Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan, elaborated on the principles of territorial jurisdiction in criminal conspiracy cases. The ruling, which came in the context of an application seeking to quash criminal proceedings against former Member of Parliament Atul Kumar Singh alias Atul Rai, has clarified the interpretation of Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and its related provisions.
Rejecting Rai’s plea, the court underscored that territorial jurisdiction is not confined to the place where the offense was directly committed but extends to locations where part of the cause of action arises. The judgment has significant implications for cases involving criminal conspiracy and abetment to suicide, highlighting the broader jurisdictional framework in such matters.
Background of the Case
The case emerged from a tragic incident on August 16, 2021, when a woman who had accused Rai of sexual assault in 2019 and her associate, Satyam Prakash Rai, set themselves on fire outside the Supreme Court in New Delhi. In a live-streamed declaration, the victims alleged sustained harassment and threats orchestrated by Rai and co-accused Amitabh Thakur, a former IPS officer.
The FIR filed in Lucknow accused the duo of abetment to suicide, criminal conspiracy, and other offenses. The prosecution argued that the conspiracy to tarnish the victim’s image and intimidate her into withdrawing the rape charges was hatched in part in Lucknow, granting territorial jurisdiction to the courts there.
Key Legal Issues
1. Jurisdiction Under Section 177 CrPC:
Rai contended that the offense did not occur within Lucknow’s territorial limits since the suicides took place in New Delhi. The court, however, emphasized that part of the alleged conspiracy, including actions by co-accused Amitabh Thakur and interactions with the victim, occurred in Lucknow. It cited Section 177 CrPC, which allows inquiry and trial in the area where the cause of action or a part thereof arises.
2. Conspiracy as a Continuing Offense:
Justice Chauhan observed that conspiracy is a continuous offense and can be tried in any location where overt acts related to the conspiracy occurred. The court referenced landmark Supreme Court rulings, including Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police and Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, to explain that territorial jurisdiction can extend beyond the immediate location of the offense.
3. Framework for Abetment and Conspiracy:
The court reiterated the elements required to establish criminal conspiracy and abetment of suicide. It emphasized that conspiracy involves an agreement between parties, which can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, and abetment necessitates a positive act of instigation or facilitation.
Court’s Observations
Justice Chauhan dismissed the plea to quash the proceedings, citing the victim’s statements before the suicides as vital evidence. The court remarked:
“When determining jurisdiction in conspiracy cases, the court must consider where acts furthering the conspiracy occurred. In the present case, part of the alleged conspiracy was carried out in Lucknow, giving rise to the court’s jurisdiction.”
The judgment also stressed the need for trial courts to adjudicate factual disputes rather than preemptively dismiss cases. It reaffirmed that the inherent power to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.
Case Details
– Case Title: Application U/S 482 No. 5495 of 2023
– Applicant: Atul Kumar Singh @ Atul Rai
– Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh
– Applicant’s Counsel: Senior Advocate Vishwajeet Singh, with Kaustubh Singh and others.
– State Counsel: Additional Advocate General V.K. Shahi, with Anurag Verma and Ajeet Singh.
