<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2009 (1) TMI 936 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304692</link>
    <description>Territorial jurisdiction in criminal writ petitions depends mainly on where the alleged offence was committed and where the complaint or charge sheet places the material facts. Section 177 CrPC requires inquiry and trial by the court within whose local jurisdiction the offence occurred, and the existence of some related facts elsewhere does not by itself justify interference. As the investigation was completed at Ranchi, the charge sheet and records were before the Special Judge there, and the allegations were substantially centred there, the Supreme Court held that the Bombay High Court was justified in refusing to entertain the quashing petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Oct 2022 11:47:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=693383" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 936 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304692</link>
      <description>Territorial jurisdiction in criminal writ petitions depends mainly on where the alleged offence was committed and where the complaint or charge sheet places the material facts. Section 177 CrPC requires inquiry and trial by the court within whose local jurisdiction the offence occurred, and the existence of some related facts elsewhere does not by itself justify interference. As the investigation was completed at Ranchi, the charge sheet and records were before the Special Judge there, and the allegations were substantially centred there, the Supreme Court held that the Bombay High Court was justified in refusing to entertain the quashing petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304692</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>