This article is written by Harshita Agrawal. The article highlights the conclusions and rulings in the case of Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Jharkhand, 2022. It provides an in-depth analysis of the case’s factual backdrop, legal principles, and the arguments presented, along with the pertinent and noteworthy rationales. Moreover, it explains the judgements considered by the court and its subsequent decisions, coupled with various statements and arguments pertinent to legal precedent.

Table of Contents


In the case of Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Jharkhand, (2022), there was an FIR lodged against the petitioner Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary and other co-petitioners by Priyanka Jaiswal, who alleged the mistreatment and abuse by her husband, Prem Chandra Shekhar. She met with him through an online matrimonial platform, and he assured her of her independence and a dowry-free marriage. She also mentioned in the FIR about all the verbal abuse and manipulation she had faced, leading to her return to India. The police arrested the husband (Prem Chandra Shekhar) and non-bailable warrants were issued against him and other co-petitioner. After the arrest, the court deemed it improper and noted a lack of jurisdiction. There were several guidelines formulated by the State of Jharkhand to prevent unwarranted arrests and the guidelines were based on those established by the Delhi Police, and it was necessary to communicate them to senior authorities for compliance. With these decisions and directives, the petition is granted and the dismissal of an FIR and non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioners was revoked.

Details of the case

Name of the case

Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Jharkhand, 2022

Download Now


Cr.M.P. No. 1291 of 2021

Name of the court

Jharkhand High Court

Date of judgement

16 June, 2022

Type of case

Civil Writ Jurisdiction


Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Authored by

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Names of the parties

Appellant: Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary, Mina Devi, Prem Kant Shekhar, Nishant Shekhar, Sania Shekhar, and Prem Chandra Shekhar

Respondent: State of Jharkhand, State of Jharkhand (Ranchi), Priyanka Jaiswal

Statutes and laws involved in the case

There were several statutes and laws that were implicated, as well as various legal matters that were addressed in the case of Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Jharkhand, 2022. Among the commonly cited statutes and laws in cases concerning unwanted arrests, misappropriate use of law or violations of the legal rights of any party are:

Facts of Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary vs. State of Jharkhand, 2022 

In the case of Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Jharkhand, 2022, Priyanka Jaiswal filed a First Information Report (FIR),claiming that during her tenure as a freelance artist, she registered on an online matrimonial platform where Prem Chandra Shekhar initiated communication with her. He persuaded her for marriage with the tales of his successful career in Frankfurt, Germany and also claimed to earn Rs 70-80 lakhs annually. The appellant reassured her of her independence post-marriage as she was reluctant to leave her job in Mumbai for Germany and also tried to convince her to accept his marriage proposal, promising her a dowry-free marriage. 

The marriage was held on 5th October, 2018 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, in Kolkata, followed by a public ceremony on 18th January, 2019 in Jamshedpur, during which the total expenses of Rs. 60 lakhs were incurred by her parents.

After the wedding on 3rd February, 2019, she travelled to Mumbai along with her husband, where he forced her to obtain a visa for Germany and depart for Frankfurt. On 10th February, 2019, when she visited her in-laws in Kolkata, she faced derogatory remarks about the lack of dowry. She shared all the incidents with her husband and he remained silent. 

Despite the verbal abuse, she acquired her visa and went to her husband in Frankfurt on 18th April, 2019. However, his behaviour changed drastically, citing the non-fulfilment of dowry demands by her parents. He demanded 50 lakhs cash, one car and one flat in Kolkata. He also started to maintain a distance from her. He exploited her ambition to pursue her career and also threatened to end the relationship. 

Consequently, for some mental peace, she returned to India on 5th December, 2019 experiencing further mistreatment from her in-laws. The appellant further apologised and promised to protect her from his parent’s demands. The abuse continued after her return to Frankfurt in February 2020 and all the violence and emotional trauma left her mentally and physically broken, forcing her to lead her life in isolation and hunger. He left her on 2nd October, 2020 and also blocked all communication, leaving her to look for herself. She also stated that she endured starvation and illness alone, and thus requested help from her husband for tickets to India for her brother’s wedding. After returning to Kolkata on 2nd November, 2020, she again met with physical assault and was detained by her in-laws, prompting her parents to rescue her. Since then, she has been residing in Jamshedpur and occasionally visits her parents.

After the complaints, an FIR was filed and non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur along with other co-petitioners. This petition was filed by the husband (petitioner) to quash the FIR. 

Issues raised 

  • Whether a non-bailable warrant of arrest can be issued without serving notice under Section 41-A of the Cr. P.C. in Section 498-A case?
  • Whether the Jamshedpur Court lacks territorial jurisdiction due to the alleged occurrences that happened in Kolkata or Germany?
  • Whether there was any misuse of law to settle personal scores or gain advantages in dispute?
  • Whether the rights of the petitioner were violated in any manner?
  • Whether the burden of proof lies on the accused under the case law of Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Jharkhand, (2022) ?

Arguments of the parties

Petitioner (husband)

  • The legal representative of the petitioner argued to the fact that the non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner without complying with the procedures and without serving proper notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. and it was also contended that the allegations alleged were indiscriminate against all the petitioners.
  • He also emphasised the point that the jurisdiction of the Jamshedpur Court was territorial and the alleged incident occurred either in Kolkata or Germany.

On the point of territorial jurisdiction, he cited the case of Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh (2016), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held after the statements of the senior counsel of the petitioner that the Police Station Bhilai Nagar, Durg, where the FIR was filed lacked territorial jurisdiction to investigate the alleged offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. They also pointed out that none of the offences that are alleged occurred within the jurisdiction of the police station. The authority to investigate cognizable cases within the jurisdiction of the police station is granted under Section 156(1) and the validity of such investigation that cannot be challenged later falls under Section 156(2). The completion of the investigation necessitates the submission of its results as outlined in Sections 168, 169 and 170 of the Cr.P.C. He relies on this judgement to argue that since the cause of action did not occur in Jamshedpur, registering the FIR there was unnecessary.

  • He argued that the accusations against petitioners apart from the husband are vague and sweeping in nature.

Respondent (wife)

Criminal litigation
  • The legal representative of the respondent countered the arguments stating that all necessary procedures were followed, whether arrest or territorial jurisdiction.  
  • In her statement, she stated that it was the fault of the security guard of the relevant apartment for not receiving any help from the Jamshedpur police. The local police also paid minimal attention and had not addressed the matter properly.
  • The investigation was conducted legally with all the nuances and principles laid thereupon and to support her statement of maintaining territorial jurisdiction, the learned counsel cited the case of Rupali Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019).

As per the case law of Rupali Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019), the Supreme Court held that when a woman faces cruelty from her husband or other in-laws, she may file a complaint not only in the place where the incident has occurred but also in the place where she is residing. The court concluded that cruelty affects adversely and continues to make an impact on her life resulting in the place within territorial jurisdiction as it is her right to seek legal remedy from any of her residence. This judgement broadens the view of the judiciary in India providing the victim more convenience and protection.

Laws discussed in Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary vs. State of Jharkhand, 2022

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution

Article 21 confers on every person the fundamental rights to life and personal liberty . It says that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedures established by law”.

The right to life includes those things which make life meaningful. The right of life enshrined in Article 21 guarantees the right to live with human dignity. That the expression ‘personal liberty’ is not limited to bodily restraint or to confinement to prison only which is well illustrated in the case of Kharak Singh vs. State of U.P. (1963). Under this case the question raised was of the validity of the police regulations authorising the police to conduct what are called as domiciliary visits against bad characters and to have surveillance over them. The court held that visits were an invasion on the part of the police of the sanctity of a man’s home and a intrusion into his personal security and his right to sleep and therefore violative of the personal liberty of the individual unless authorised by a valid law. As regards the regulations authorising surveillance over the movements of an individual the court was of the view that they were not bad as no right to privacy has been guaranteed in the Constitution.

Article 226 of the Indian Constitution

As per Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, which states the power of the High Court to issue certain writs. Notwithstanding anything in Article 32, every High Court shall have power within its jurisdiction to issue directions, orders or writs, including those akin to Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto, and Certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part 3 or for any other purpose.

The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any government, authority or individual may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction over the territories where the cause of action, either entirely or partially, originates for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of the respective government or authority or the residence of the individual is situated outside those territories.

In cases where an interim order, whether in the form of an injunction, stay, or otherwise, is issued against a party in proceedings concerning a petition under clause (1) –

  • has not been provided with copies of the petition and all supporting documents for the interim order, and
  • has not been granted an opportunity to present their case

makes an application to the High Court to revoke such an order, providing a copy of the application to the party in whose favour the order was issued or their legal representative, the High Court must resolve the application within two weeks from its receipt or from the date the copy is furnished, whichever is later. If the High Court is closed on the last day of this period, the application must be resolved before the next open day; otherwise, the interim order stands vacated upon the expiration of the specified period.

The power conferred on a High Court by this Article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of Article 32.

In the case of State of Madras v. Sundaram (1964), it was established that if the contested conclusions lacked evidential support, a High Court, when exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, cannot act as an appellate authority over the factual determinations made by a competent tribunal during a duly conducted departmental inquiry. When exercising its authority under Article 226, the High Court does not adjudicate on the sufficiency of evidence to substantiate the allegation. 

Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 498 pertains to enticing, taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman. As per this Section, anyone who takes or entices away a woman, knowing or having reason to believe to believe she is married to another man, from her husband or anyone entrusted with her care by her husband, intending for her to engage in unlawful intercourse with someone else, or who hides or detains such a woman for that purpose, shall be subject to imprisonment for a term of up to two years, a fine, or both.

To uphold a conviction under Section 498, it must be proven that the woman was enticed or taken away from her husband’s residence and detained for the purpose of engaging in unlawful intercourse, as determined in the case of Prem Nath Laroiya v. The State (1972). A mere observation of the woman outside the accused’s residence is insufficient evidence. The accused’s intent is crucial under this provision.

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

As per Section 498A of the Code and (Sections 85 and 86 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), any husband or relative of the husband who inflicts cruelty upon a woman shall be punishable by imprisonment for up to three years and may also be fined.

For the purpose of this Section, cruelty refers to:

  • any deliberate behaviour likely to compel the woman to contemplate suicide or to cause serious injury or endanger her life, limbs or health (be it mental or physical), or
  • harassment aimed at coercing the woman or her relatives to comply with unlawful demands for property or valuable assets, or is due to their failure to meet such demands. 

In the landmark judgement of Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam, (2009), the High Court of Guwahati held that ‘cruelty’ in the context of Section 498A IPC should be interpreted within the specific framework of that Section, which may differ from other legal statutes. It requires an examination of the man’s behaviour, assessing the severity of his actions, and determining whether they are likely to drive the woman to commit suicide, among other factors. It must be taken into consideration that the women have faced cruelty either in a repeated manner or in close proximity to the time of filing the complaint. The Court also clarified that minor disagreements or disputes cannot be classified as ‘cruelty’.

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

As per Section 4 of the said Act, anyone who directly or indirectly seeks dowry from the parents, relatives or guardians of the bride or groom shall be subject to imprisonment for a term of not less than six months, up to two years, and a fine of up to ten thousand rupees. Provided that the court may, under the special circumstances mentioned in the judgement, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months. 

As the judgement passed in the case law of Vipin Jaiswal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2013), the accused in the said case was charged under this Section for demanding dowry. The Court also observed that it is the burden of the prosecution to prove the fact that the accused had made a specific demand for dowry in order to secure a conviction and charges at him. There are certain allegations of harassment or unsupported dowry demands have surfaced, but they lack sufficient evidence for conviction.

Judgement in Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary vs. State of Jharkhand, 2022

The arrest of the petitioners was conducted without  proper adherence to legal procedures and the Jamshedpur Court where the case was filed also lacks jurisdiction in this matter, resulting in the issuance of six non-bailable warrants against the petitioners, which are also hereby annulled. Since the arrest of petitioners was not processed in a proper manner, the court ordered the State of Jharkhand to formulate their guidelines to prevent unwarranted arrests and repeat the same in the future, ensuring the protection of innocent persons. The State is encouraged to refer to the guidelines established by the Delhi Police and upheld by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, with the aim of modelling the Jharkhand Police accordingly. The order is to be conveyed to the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and Director General of Police, Jharkhand, for their consideration and potential adoption of such guidelines, hoping that the authorities of the State of Jharkhand will assess these suggestions in a positive manner and also take appropriate action. With the aforementioned observations and conclusions, this petition is granted, stating that any interim orders that are previously issued are hereby revoked. 

Rationale behind 

In view of the submission made by both the legal representatives, the court has reviewed the documents and records presented before it. It is clear that the notice under Section 41-A of the CrPC was not served on the petitioners, as the evidence recorded clarified that the doors at both the addresses were locked. When the police verified the addresses for passport verification earlier, they found that there were two addresses, one in Bihar and other one in Kolkata. As per the data provided to them the notice was sent to Bihar address and the old address of Kolkata and they both were locked since the residents moved to a different place. However, it was the duty of the police to take care of this matter and at least post the notice of non-bailable warrants of arrest under Section 41-A CrPC in a prominent location if it was returned, which was not done in this case.

In a repeated manner, both the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts have issued guidelines on how to proceed further in the cases under Section 498-A. The principle that ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’ has been completely reversed by the police wherein the fact is ‘jail is the rule and bail is the exception’. Nowadays, the police have the power to arrest people without the proper compliances especially in cases related to Section 498-A IPC. In such a scenario, the importance of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution becomes evident.

The Supreme Court, in its order, states that it is the right of a wife to file a case even if she resides with her parents after being outcasted from her marital home. In this case, the complainant resides in Germany with her husband and all the expenses are covered by him. The complaint contains false allegations mainly relating to events in Kolkata or Germany, indicating jurisdiction lies there, and she also sent a letter to her CEO, which indicated her idea of filing a case in Jamshedpur, although she resides in Germany. The allegations made by her are entirely ambiguous concerning all the petitioners except her husband. The reliability of Section 498-A of the IPC is questioned, since the husband of the complainant was absent where the complainant resides in her marital home in Germany. 

The court held inquiry for the delayed production after the arrest of the elderly couple and the State’s counsel failed to provide a satisfactory response. The fact that these individuals were detained in Kolkata by Jamshedpur Police without involvement of the local authorities raised a concern of violating the procedural norms. The fact that the petitioner were detained highlights the need of Constitutional courts to step in firmly and also the issuance of non-bailable warrants without proper legal justification and not presenting them before court within 24 hours as required, but also after 48 hours after the bail application was passed, makes the situation even more questionable. 

The court expressed concerns over the trend of implicating husbands and relatives in such cases, especially with vague allegations. The FIR also contained allegations lacking specificity and distinct charges against the petitioner. Consequently, the court orders the judgement in favour of the husband and also questions the fairness of subjecting the petitioners to trial based on vague allegations.

Issue wise judgement of the case

Whether a non-bailable warrant of arrest can be issued without serving notice under Section 41-A of the Cr. P.C. in Section 498-A case?

Under Section 41A of the CrPC, a notice of appearance should be served to the accused within two weeks from the date of initiation of the case and if any person fails to do so, he shall be liable for imprisonment up to seven years. However, the time limit may be extended by the Superintendent of Police and the reasons should be recorded in writing. The accused should appear before the police and also cooperate with the investigation. The provision aims to prevent unnecessary arrests and the option should be used as a last resort.

As per the case of Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Jharkhand, (2022), the court emphasised that the issuance of non-bailable warrant should be an exception and not a rule. The court also highlighted the importance of adhering to the procedures laid in Section 41-A of the CrPC, especially in Section 498-A IPC cases which deal with cruelty. 

The police should follow all the mandatory regulations regarding the issuance of non-bailable warrant and if the accused fails to comply with the notice or does not appear or cooperate with the investigation, the authorities can proceed with a non-bailable warrant.

In this case law, the petitioner was illegally arrested from Kolkata without serving a proper notice under the above mentioned Section which clearly indicates violation of rules resulting in the annulment of the proceedings by the High Court.

Whether the Jamshedpur Court lacks territorial jurisdiction due to the alleged occurrences that happened in Kolkata or Germany?

As per the documents filed before the High Court and the statement made by the respondent itself that she is a resident of Frankfurt, Germany and the allegations made in the complaint revealed that the incidents had taken place either in Kolkata or at Germany narrated the fact that the Jamshedpur Court did not hold any jurisdiction regarding the case. Since no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Jamshedpur Court, the High Court abolished all the claims made by the petitioner regarding the territorial jurisdiction and the court suppressed any such order made in accordance.  

Whether there was any misuse of law to settle personal scores or gain advantages in dispute?

The legal representative of the petitioner argued that the allegations are completely vague and general, dragging the entire family, which is against the law. He further stated that nowadays a trend has developed into matrimonial disputes unnecessarily dragging the entire family, including elderly parents. He asserted that this case follows the pattern of dragging the elderly parents-in-law into a Section 498-A case without a prima facie. After considering the above point, it was concluded by the judges that the courts should not encourage these kinds of disputes, and therefore it is legally appropriate to quash the proceedings where there was a misuse of law to settle any personal scores or gain advantages. Any kind of general allegation would be taken as physical and mental torture and hence the Supreme Court in this case set aside the criminal proceedings against the petitioners and therefore the order passed by the High Court stand overruled.

Whether the rights of the petitioner were violated in any manner?

Under this case, with the evidence presented, and the arguments stated before the court along with the relevant papers, it was held that the FIR and the contents of the charge-sheet were not furnished on the legal basis to take the offence as a cognizable one. The judges learned the fact that the alleged offences mentioned in the contents of the charge-sheet against the petitioner, especially the elderly couple could not be held under the Sections mentioned in the Act and not to have been relegated to the ordeal of the trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioners were overturned.

Whether the burden of proof lies on the accused under the case law of Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Jharkhand, (2022) ?

In the case law of Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Jharkhand, (2022), it was held that the burden of proof does not necessarily lie solely on the accused as it depends on various factors, including the nature of the case, the evidence presented before the court, the documents taken in consideration, the arguments stated by both the parties and the legal principles applied thereafter.

Critical analysis of Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary vs. State of Jharkhand, 2022

Any action that would cause injustice and create obstacles in the promotion of justice would be considered an abuse of the court’s proceedings. The court holds the authority to terminate such proceedings, as the initiation or continuation of such abuse would create problems in serving justice. Where the complaint fails to disclose an offence, the court may examine the facts presented. When a complaint is considered to be dismissed, the court allows the officials to review the evidence to determine whether any offence is evident, even if the allegations are fully accepted. It is prudent for the legislature to reconsider the entire provisions since most of the complaints contain larger versions of incidents and there is a prevalent tendency to over-implicate individuals in certain cases. The process of criminal trials entails significant suffering for all parties involved, and it is also regretful that an overwhelming number of these complaints overburden the courts and contribute to social injustice, resulting in disrupting peace, harmony and societal well-being. Therefore, it is essential for the authorities to pay attention and also inform the public about making necessary amendments to the existing laws to address these issues effectively.

Cases cited by the legal representative of the petitioner in favour of his argument

To reinforce the arguments, the legal representative of the petitioner cited the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), in which the Supreme Court in its judgement held that arrest carries profound consequences, including humiliation and loss of freedom, leaving lasting scars. The police continue to misuse their power of arrest and are often harassed rather than genuine law enforcement even after repeated judicial reminders. The misuse of power through police corruption undermines public trust. To address these issues, the court passes the following directions-

  • The State Government must instruct police officers to assess the necessity for arrest based on specified criteria and not to make arrests under Section 498-A IPC
  • The police must provide all the documents, including a filled checklist and should also justify the arrest with reasons and evidence before the accused were presented before the magistrate.
  • The magistrate, before authorising detention, must review the police report and satisfy themselves of what is necessary for detention.
  • The decision to not arrest should be communicated to the magistrate within two weeks of the case’s filing, with reasons provided.
  • Notice of appearance under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. must be served on the accused within two weeks of case filing, with reasons recorded for any extensions.
  • If these directives lead to failure to comply, it may result in departmental action against police officers and contempt of court proceedings before the relevant High Court.

The legal representative of the petitioner countered that individuals are being arrested without proper follow-up and compliance of legal guidelines. The judgement given by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in pursuance of the similar legal correspondence cited in the case of Amandeep Singh Johar v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2016), there were certain guidelines established on handling the cases:

Police officers should be mandatorily required to issue notices under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code, as per the prescribed format, and they must be issued and served formally in accordance with the provisions outlined in (Chapter VI) of the Code. The suspect or accused must comply with the notice under Section 41A of the CrPC by attending at the specified time and place. If unable to attend, they should promptly notify the investigating officer in writing, proposing an alternative time within four working days, unless a valid reason for the delay is provided. The investigating officer allows rescheduling and if the officer suspects any more delays in the procedures, they have the right to deny the request and also to mandate attendance. After receiving the notice and appearing for interrogation, an acknowledgement may be requested by the suspect. If the suspect is also directed to appear elsewhere other than the place they need to appear in that case, they can get the receipt attested by an independent witness. It is the duty of the SHO to issue booklets of notices and to maintain proper records. If, in any manner, these procedures result in failure to adhere, it can result in disciplinary action. Also, various public awareness campaigns should be conducted to disseminate information about rights and legal procedures. Training programs for police and judicial officers should emphasise compliance with relevant CrPC sections.

The case of State through CBI v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar (2002) was also cited by the legal representative of the petitioner, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held Section 73 of the Cr.P.C. applies generally and allows courts to issue warrants to apprehend individuals accused of non-bailable offences evading arrest. We must address whether such warrants can be issued for their production before the police to aid investigation. While magistrates frequently play a role in investigations, such as conducting identification parades or recording statements, they do not exercise judicial discretion in these actions as they would when dealing with an accused presented before them under a warrant of arrest issued under Section 73. In such cases, the court may grant bail or authorise detention under Section 167 of the Code. Whether a magistrate will grant police custody upon the request of the investigating agency is solely at their discretion, which must be judicially exercised according to Section 167(3) of the Code. It is concluded that the warrant issued is only for appearance before the court and not before the police. The authorization for police custody requires the exercise of judicial discretion based on evidence placed before them. Thus, it is also not correct to assert that warrants can be issued solely for the production of the accused before the police to pursue an investigation.


The court finds the arrest of the petitioner was not done properly and the Jamshedpur Court doesn’t have jurisdiction. The six non-bailable warrants against the petitioners are also cancelled by the court and to prevent any unauthorised arrest, the court suggests the State of Jharkhand create guidelines in view of Delhi Police guidelines. The guidelines and fundamental principles should be sent to higher state authorities for consideration and adoption wherever required. The court also mentions that the authorities indulged in these cases and the formulation will act positively on these suggestions made to them. With these decisions and guidelines, the petition is granted and concluded, and any previous interim orders passed are to be cancelled.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is cognizable and non-cognizable offence?

As per Section 2(c) of the CrPC, cognizable offence means an offence for which, and cognizable case means a case in which a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant. In order to be a cognizable case under the said Section of the Code, it would be enough if one or more (not ordinarily all) of the offences are cognizable. Examples of cognizable offences include murder, rape, theft, kidnapping and dowry death, which can be both bailable and non-bailable.

As per Section 2(l) of the CrPC, non-cognizable offence means an offence for which, and non-cognizable case means a case in which a police officer has no authority to arrest without a warrant. Thus, a non-cognizable offence needs special authority to be arrested by the police officer. Offences listed in the first schedule of the Indian Penal Code, include acts like assault, cheating, forgery, defamation and public nuisance, and are generally bailable. 

What do you mean by territorial jurisdiction?

Order 7 Rule 7 of CrPC states about the territorial jurisdiction of courts, where a court can exercise its authority defining the geographic area. The suit must be filed in the court where the property is located, which mostly concerns immovable property, such as recovery, rent, partition or determination of property rights. If the property is located in multiple jurisdictions, a suit can be filed in any court covering any portion of the said property.

In cases involving movable property or civil wrongs, the suit can be filed either where the wrongdoing occurred or where the defendant resides. Similarly, for disputes arising from business agreements or civil matters, the suit can be filed where the defendant resides, where they conduct business or where the cause of action arose.

Summon and warrant under CrPC

A summons is issued either for appearance or for producing a document or thing, which may be issued to an accused person or witness. Every summons issued by the Court shall be in writing, in duplicate, signed by the Presiding Officer of such court or by such officer as is authorised by the High Court and shall bear the seal of the court. The summons should be clear and specific in its terms as to the title of the court, the place at which, the day and time of the day when, and the attendance of the person summoned.

The summons shall be served by a police officer, an officer of the court, or another public servant. In case the service cannot be affected by the exercise of due-diligence, the serving officer can perform substituted service by affixing one of the duplicates of the summons to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the person summoned ordinarily resides, and thereupon the court, after making such enquiries as it thinks fit, may either declare that the summons has been duly served or order fresh service, as it considers proper.

Every warrant of arrest issued by a court under this Code shall be in writing, signed by the Presiding Officer of such court, and shall bear the seal of such court. Such a warrant shall remain in force until it is cancelled by the court that issued it or until it is executed. The form of warrant of arrest is Form No. 2 of the Second Schedule. The requisites of a warrant are as follows:

  • It must be in writing
  • It must bear the name and designation of the person who is to execute it
  • It must give full name and description of the person to be arrested
  • It must state the offence charged
  • It must be signed by the Presiding Officer
  • It must be sealed.

Such a warrant is only for the protection of a person before the concerned court and not before the police officer.


Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here