https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293833 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. en-us Mon, 02 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Mar 2021 14:24:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293833 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. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 02 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293833