Territorial jurisdiction in criminal complaints does not defeat proceedings absent failure of justice; Delhi court retained jurisdiction here.

A criminal complaint could not be discharged under Section 245(2) of the CrPC solely because territorial jurisdiction was challenged after long participation in the proceedings; such an objection does not by itself vitiate the case unless failure of justice is shown, and discharge is confined to complaints that are prima facie groundless. On the facts, although interception occurred in Haryana, the search, recovery, seizure and panchnama were prepared in Delhi, so substantial parts of the alleged offence arose within Delhi's local limits. The Delhi court therefore had territorial jurisdiction to proceed, the discharge order was unsustainable, and the complaint proceedings were restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint could be discharged under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 solely on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction after long participation in the proceedings; (ii) whether the Delhi court lacked territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the complaint under the Customs Act.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint could be discharged under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 solely on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction after long participation in the proceedings.

Analysis: The objection to territorial jurisdiction was raised after a long delay and after the accused had participated in the proceedings. The statutory scheme distinguishing curable irregularities from defects vitiating proceedings was applied. Reference was made to the principle that irregularities in taking cognizance or trying a matter in the wrong local area do not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings unless failure of justice is shown. The discharge power under Section 245(2) was held to be available only where the charges are groundless on a prima facie assessment, not as a substitute for returning a complaint on jurisdictional objections without examining prejudice or the merits of the accusation.

Conclusion: The discharge under Section 245(2) on the ground of lack of jurisdiction was not justified and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the Delhi court lacked territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the complaint under the Customs Act.

Analysis: The interception of the vehicle took place in Haryana, but the search, recovery of the contraband gold, seizure, and preparation of the panchnama were carried out in Delhi. On those facts, the substantial part of the alleged offence was connected with acts done in Delhi. The basic rule of local jurisdiction under Section 177 was considered with its exceptions, and the Court held that the place where the offence was fully detected and the contraband was recovered was material for jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Delhi court had territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the complaint.

Final Conclusion: The order discharging the accused was unsustainable, the matter was restored to the trial court for continuation of the complaint proceedings, and the challenge to jurisdiction failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal proceeding is not vitiated merely because cognizance or trial was taken in a wrong local area unless failure of justice is shown, and a discharge under Section 245(2) cannot rest only on territorial jurisdiction when the allegations disclose a prima facie offence and substantial acts connected with the offence occurred within the forum's local limits.

---