Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 198
Place of inquiry or trial
(a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed; or
(b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another; or
(c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one; or
(d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.
Why this exists
Crimes don't always happen neatly in one police station's territory. Kidnapping, cheating, cybercrime, or ongoing nuisances often span multiple towns or districts. This provision (carried forward from the old Code of Criminal Procedure's Section 179-182 scheme, now consolidated in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) prevents cases from collapsing on a technicality of 'wrong jurisdiction' and gives victims and police a workable, sensible choice of where to file and try the case.
How courts read it
Under the earlier, similarly worded CrPC provisions, courts consistently held that these jurisdiction rules are meant to be practical and not overly technical — the goal is to ensure some competent court can try the offence, and objections about place of trial should be raised early and shown to have caused real prejudice, not used to derail cases on hyper-technical grounds.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: A case is invalid if tried in the 'wrong' city among several possible ones.
Fact: The law allows any of the connected local areas' courts to try the case validly — there's no single mandatory location when the offence spans multiple areas. - Myth: This means any court anywhere in India can try any case.
Fact: The choice is limited to courts having jurisdiction over the specific local areas actually connected to the offence, not any random location.