M.Wahajuddin - (1.) A prosecution has been launched against the petitioner under Section 420 IPC for cheating. The petitioner submitted that Agra courts have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter and cognizance could be taken only at Jaunpur. This is the only point urged on behalf of the petitioner. Any other pleas were not stressed in the arguments before me.
(2.) SO far as the offence of cheating is concerned, section 182 CrPC contains special provisions regarding the place of trial of offence of cheating. That section runs as follows :- "182. Offence committed by letters, etc.-(1) Any offence which includes cheating may, if the deception is practised by means of letters or telecommunication messages, be inquired into or tried by any Court within whose local jurisdiction such letters or messages were sent or were received ; and any offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the property was delivered by the person deceived or was received by the accused person. (2)............" Considering the implications of this section I offered further opportunities to both the sides for furnishing supplementary affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit particularly on the point as to where any property was delivered. In the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner it was expressly stated that all the properties involved were delivered to the petitioner at Jaunpur. Reply to the same averments were made in para 4 of the supplementary counter affidavit of the Inspector Incharge P. S. Bazaria, District Kanpur. In that paragraph while making the averments in the supplementary counter affidavit what has been stated is that the verbal misrepresentation practising deceit by which the victim was cheated were made at Agra when the petitioner contacted the victim Sri Bahadur Singh at Agra in the first week of May 1979. That is one aspect of the matter. As regards parting with any property or delivering any property the categorical averments in paragraph 4 of the petitioner's supplementary affidavit were not repelled. It has been simply stated that in consequent to the effect of cheating which has been completed at Agra the victim delivered the properties to the petitioner with regard to his dishonest inducement. In this paragraph it has been farther stated that the statement of Sri Bahadur Singh, the victim, is annexed aft Annexure 1 regarding the matter. On perusal of that statement I find that Sri Bahadur Singh has nowhere stated to have parted with any property or to have delivered any property at Agra. Of course the other averment regarding misrepresentation made at Agra and thereby playing deceit is no doubt supported by the statement, Annexure 1. Section 182 CrPC has two parts. So far as second part is concerned, conferring jurisdiction, it is nor attracted as the victim did not part with any property nor delivered any property to the petitioner at Agra. I may now consider the first part. That part is confined to only two kinds of deception practised, namely, (1) deception practised by means of letters; (2) deception practised by means of telecommunication messages. In the present case no deception is said to have been practised at Agra by means of letters or telecommunication message. Deception is alleged to have been practised only by verbal representative and such deception practised at Agra would not confer any jurisdiction upon Agra courts in view of the language of Section 182 CrPC. I, therefore, hold that Agra courts have no jurisdiction to take cognizance and it is the courts at Jaunpur which have jurisdiction to take cognizance. That being the position the petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in case no. 1384 of 1978 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate City First, Agra is quashed. I may again make it very clear that State will be at liberty to prosecute the petitioner at Jaunpur. Petition allowed.;