- (1.) Respondent no. 1 instituted a complaint of defamation against the petitioners under Sections 500 and 501 read with Sections 34 and 120B of IPC in which, vide summoning order dated 24th July, 2013, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons to the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the summoning order dated 24th July, 2013 on the ground that respondent no. 1 is not the aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 199(1) Cr.P.C. The petitioners are also seeking the quashing of criminal complaint filed by respondent no. 1.
(2.) The notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. has not yet been framed and the case is listed before the learned Trial Court on 24th January, 2014.
(3.) This Court is of the view that the petitioners should urge the pleas raised in this petition before the learned Trial Court at the stage of framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. in terms of the law laid down in the following judgments: (i) In Krishna Kumar Variar v. Share Shoppe, 2010 12 SCC 485, the accused challenged the summoning order before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate lacked the territorial jurisdiction. The petition was rejected by the High Court against which the accused filed the special leave petition. The Supreme Court held that in such cases, instead of rushing to the High Court, the accused should file an application before the Trial Court. The observations made by the Supreme Court are reproduced hereunder:- 2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 14-5-2009 of the High Court of Delhi whereby the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC by the petitioner herein has been dismissed. 3. The appellant herein is an accused under Sections 415 /420 IPC in which summons have been issued to him by a court at Delhi. He challenged the summoning order on the ground that it is only the court at Bombay which has jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. His petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the summoning order has been rejected by the High Court by the impugned order. Hence, he is before us in this appeal. 4. In our opinion, in such cases where the accused or any other person raises an objection that the trial court has no jurisdiction in the matter, the said person should file an application before the trial court making this averment and giving the relevant facts. Whether a court has jurisdiction to try/entertain a case will, at least in part, depend upon the facts of the case. Hence, instead of rushing to the higher court against the summoning order, the person concerned should approach the trial court with a suitable application for this purpose and the trial court should after hearing both the sides and recording evidence, if necessary, decide the question of jurisdiction before proceeding further with the case. 5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned judgment and order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant, if so advised, may approach the trial court with a suitable application in this connection and, if such an application is filed, the trial court shall after hearing both the sides and after recording evidence on the question on jurisdiction, shall decide the question of jurisdiction before further proceeding with the trial.;