Ordinary place of inquiry and trial
Section 197 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with ordinary place of inquiry and trial. Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
Section 197, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 177 Ordinary place of inquiry and trial Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 6
- s. 98 Power to declare certain publications forfeited and to issue search-warrants for same
- s. 125 Security for keeping peace on conviction
- s. 127 Security for good behaviour from persons disseminating certain matters
- s. 207 Power to issue summons or warrant for offence committed beyond local jurisdiction
- s. 217 Prosecution for offences against State and for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence
- s. 447 Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Kaushik Chaterjee vs State of Haryana
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 177, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The question of territorial jurisdiction in criminal proceedings is a question of fact that must be established through evidence and cannot be decided at the transfer petition stage. The trial court, not the Supreme Court, is the appropriate forum to decide jurisdictional issues after evidence is led on the place of commission of the offence and other relevant factors enumerated in Sections 177 to 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, transfer petitions seeking transfer on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction must be dismissed, leaving it open to the parties to raise and have the trial court decide the jurisdictional issue during the trial.
On this section: Establishes the fundamental principle that every offence should ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
-
Babita Lila vs Union of India
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 177, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 195(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires that a complaint for false statements allegedly made in judicial proceedings must be filed by the court concerned or by a court/authority to which that court is 'subordinate' - meaning the authority to which appeals from the proceedings ordinarily and actually lie in the regular course of events. The word 'ordinarily' refers to appellate jurisdiction habitually and regularly exercised, not merely rank hierarchy. When the substantive law (here the Income Tax Act, 1961) clearly designates specific appellate forums and omits to confer appellate jurisdiction on a particular authority, courts cannot supply this legislative gap through judicial interpretation even if that authority is senior in rank, as such omission represents deliberate legislative intent. Therefore, the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation)-I, Bhopal was incompetent to lodge a criminal complaint for false statements made during income tax search proceedings conducted by Income Tax Officers of Nashik and Dhule, as the Deputy Director was not the appellate authority from their decisions; only the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) holds such appellate jurisdiction under the Income Tax Act.
On this section: Determine territorial jurisdiction of criminal courts; Section 177 prescribes ordinary place of trial; Section 178 provides exceptions; Section 179 addresses multi-location offences
-
Bridgestone India Pvt. LTD vs Inderpal Singh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 177, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
After the promulgation of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015, territorial jurisdiction for criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is determined by the place where the cheque is delivered for collection (i.e., the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains the account) or where it is presented for payment (i.e., the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account), not by the place where the cheque is drawn. The amended Section 142(2), through the non-obstante clause in Section 142A(1), overrides prior judgments and the general jurisdiction principles under Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and applies retrospectively to cases pending before the amendment came into force.
On this section: General provision establishing territorial jurisdiction for criminal proceedings. The Court noted that the amended Section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, through the non-obstante clause in Section 142A(1), overrides this general provision for cheque dishonour cases.
-
Bridgestone India PVT LTD vs Inderpal Singh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 177, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
After the promulgation of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015, territorial jurisdiction for prosecuting an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, lies in the court within whose local jurisdiction the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains an account is situated (i.e., where the cheque is delivered for collection), not where the cheque is drawn or where the drawee bank is located. The amended Section 142(2) and Section 142A(1) override the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and prior judgments, including Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod's case, and apply retrospectively to pending cases.
On this section: General rule on territorial jurisdiction; the Court held that this applies to cheque dishonour cases, but is now superseded by the amended Section 142 of the NI Act through the non-obstante clause in Section 142A(1).
-
Jatinder Kaur vs State of Punjab
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 177, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a marriage is solemnized in India but the parties subsequently move to a foreign country (such as Canada) and the alleged offences of dowry demand, misappropriation of property, and cruelty are committed in that foreign country, Indian courts lack territorial jurisdiction to try such offences. The principle of territorial jurisdiction is well-established in criminal law, and Indian courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over offences committed outside Indian territory. Therefore, a criminal revision petition challenging acquittal in such circumstances must be dismissed when the evidence clearly establishes that the major part of the alleged offence occurred outside India.
On this section: Territorial jurisdiction of criminal courts - cited in precedent cases to establish that Indian courts cannot try offences committed outside Indian territory.
-
Homi Rajvansh vs Director of C.b.i.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 177, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an offence of cheating is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or consists of several acts done in different local areas, and a major part of the cause of action arises in one jurisdiction where the principal accused is based and received the funds, the investigating agency has territorial jurisdiction to investigate the case in that jurisdiction. The High Court should not interfere with an investigation at its initial stage unless it is convinced that the investigating agency has acted malafidely. The mere fact that some part of the transaction occurred in another jurisdiction does not divest the investigating agency of its jurisdiction to investigate where the principal accused is located and the funds were received and misappropriated.
On this section: Ordinary place of enquiry or trial - offence must be inquired into and tried by court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed
-
Xxx vs In Re- State of Assam
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 177, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a criminal offence is continuing in nature, initiated in one jurisdiction with consequences ensuing in that same jurisdiction, and parts of the offence (including the consequences) occur within that jurisdiction, the court having jurisdiction over that area where the offence was initiated and consequences ensued has the authority to conduct the trial, even if part of the criminal acts occurred in a different jurisdiction. This principle applies under Sections 178 and 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and the trial court need not be changed merely because some acts constituting the offence occurred in a different territorial jurisdiction.
On this section: Establishes the general rule that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Court noted this as the foundational principle for criminal jurisdiction.
-
Mohammed Irfan vs Mohammed Sabir
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 177, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where evidence recording has already commenced under Section 145(2) of the Act, the court where proceedings are pending shall continue to exercise jurisdiction over the case, notwithstanding that the place of dishonour may ordinarily be in a different territorial jurisdiction. Such cases are deemed to be transferred to the court where they are presently pending, and the court should expedite the trial and dispose of the case in accordance with law.
On this section: Relates to territorial jurisdiction of courts. The court noted that the complainant is statutorily bound to comply with this section, and the place where a Section 138 complaint is to be filed is not of the complainant's choosing.
-
Nirasha Sharma vs The State of Madhya Pradesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 177, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The offence of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC is not a continuing offence. Territorial jurisdiction for investigation and trial of such offences is determined by the place where the alleged acts of cruelty and harassment actually occurred, not by the place where the complaint is subsequently filed. When a complaint alleges that cruelty and harassment occurred at a specific matrimonial home under the jurisdiction of one police station, but is registered at a different police station lacking territorial jurisdiction, the FIR and chargesheet registered at the wrong police station can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and the complaint should be transferred to the police station having proper territorial jurisdiction.
On this section: Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed; the court held that the word 'ordinarily' indicates exceptions exist and the rule is not invariable
-
Vishwantaha Tantri vs The State of Delhi
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 177, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where loans are sanctioned and disbursed from the head office of a financial institution located in Delhi, and the offence involves criminal misappropriation and breach of trust in relation to those loans, the Delhi court has territorial jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 181(4) CrPC, notwithstanding that the preliminary acts of verification and application submission occurred in another state. The place of receipt and disbursement of the property (money) is the relevant factor for determining jurisdiction in cases of criminal misappropriation and breach of trust, not merely the place where the initial fraudulent acts were committed.
On this section: Establishes that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed; used to determine ordinary venue for trial
-
Ramesh Ajmani vs State of Uttarakhand
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 177, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A party cannot raise a jurisdictional objection for the first time in a High Court application under Section 482 CrPC without having raised it before the trial court. Jurisdictional objections under Chapter XIII CrPC must be raised before the trial court at the appropriate stage, and only after exhausting remedies at the trial court level can such objections be raised in the High Court. The High Court will not exercise its discretionary power under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings based on jurisdictional grounds that were not raised before the trial court.
On this section: Jurisdiction of criminal courts in inquiries and trials; the court discussed various provisions dealing with territorial jurisdiction and place of trial
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 197
What have the courts held on Section 197 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Kaushik Chaterjee vs State of Haryana (30 Sep 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 177, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Establishes the fundamental principle that every offence should ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Another 10 judgments on this section are set out below, 4 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2007 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 197 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNSS 197, section 197 BNSS, section 197 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bnss 197 to 209 and bns 197 2 in hindi. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 11 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Kaushik Chaterjee vs State of Haryana (30 Sep 2020).
What should I read with Section 197 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
6 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward CrPC 177 (Ordinary place of inquiry and trial), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 197 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 197 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 197, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 35. When police may arrest without warrant881 words
- 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence823 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.