Why distance from ‘crime scene’ matters in criminal law

You don’t have any Active Subscription.

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

Independent MP Rajesh Ranjan (Pappu Yadav), SP MP Anand Bhadauriya, and other Opposition MPs protest at the Makar Dwar of the Parliament over the issue of alleged Ayodhya Ram Mandir donations embezzlement, during the ongoing Monsoon Session, in New Delhi on Friday. | Photo Credit: ANI

A Prayagraj court’s summons to Independent MP Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav for his skit at the Parliament complex over the alleged theft of donations at the Ram Temple raises the question of territorial jurisdiction, which the judiciary is expected to strictly enforce to prevent “forum-shopping” by unscrupulous litigants as a means to harassment.

The court summons to the MP to reportedly appear before it on August 11 was based on a complaint filed before the court in Prayagraj. Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) begins with the words ‘A Magistrate having jurisdiction’, suggesting that the Magistrate should have territorial competence while taking cognisance of an offence on a complaint.

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.