Place of inquiry or trial
Section 198 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with place of inquiry or trial. When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed; The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(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.
Section 198, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 178 Place of inquiry or 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Devendra Kishanlal Dagalia vs Dwarkesh Diamonds PVT LTD
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 178, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once a Magistrate has examined a complaint, taken cognizance of an offence, and issued summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate cannot thereafter recall or review that order by invoking Section 201 Cr.P.C. (which applies only to cases where the Magistrate is initially not competent to take cognizance). Relief post-issuance of summons must be sought before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution. Additionally, a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act is maintainable at any court having territorial jurisdiction over any location where any one of the five essential components of the offence (drawing, presentation, dishonour, notice, and non-payment within 15 days) occurred, and the complainant has discretion to choose such a court.
On this section: Provides that where offence consists of several acts in different local areas, any court with jurisdiction over one such area can inquire into or try the offence. Applied to establish jurisdiction in Section 138 cheque cases.
-
Kaushik Chaterjee vs State of Haryana
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 178, 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: Provides that in case of uncertainty about place of commission, or where offence is committed partly in one area and partly in another, or where it is a continuing offence, the court having jurisdiction over any such area may inquire or try the offence.
-
Brijendra Singh vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 178, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The power conferred by Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on courts to summon persons not arraigned as accused to face trial is discretionary and extraordinary in nature. This power must be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where circumstances warrant. A much stricter degree of satisfaction than the prima facie case standard (applicable at cognizance or charge-framing) is required. The court must be satisfied that strong and cogent evidence has occurred against the person from the evidence led before the court indicating that such person may be guilty of committing the offence for which such person could be tried together with already arraigned accused. Mere probability of complicity or weak oral testimony that has already been rejected during investigation is insufficient to invoke this extraordinary power. The trial court and High Court must carefully examine all material on record, including investigative findings, before invoking Section 319 powers, and the exercise of this power in casual or cavalier manner without such scrutiny cannot withstand judicial review.
On this section: Provision for keeping investigation pending; used by police to maintain investigative file open against appellants while concluding investigation
-
Jatinder Kaur vs State of Punjab
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 178, 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 - cited in Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia case regarding jurisdiction over offences committed abroad.
-
Homi Rajvansh vs Director of C.b.i.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 178, 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: Place of enquiry or trial when uncertain in which local area offence committed, or committed partly in one area and partly in another, or consists of several acts in different areas
-
Xxx vs In Re- State of Assam
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 178, 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: Applied to determine jurisdiction when an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or is a continuing offence. Court held that such offences may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. This section was directly applied to the facts where the offence was initiated in Nalbari and continued in Guwahati.
-
Nirasha Sharma vs The State of Madhya Pradesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 178, 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: Place of enquiry when offence is committed in uncertain areas, partly in different areas, continuing offence, or consisting of several acts in different areas; the court applied this to determine that since no act was committed at Ambah, that police station lacked jurisdiction
-
Mahesh Maheshwari vs C.b.i.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 178, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act involves receipt of illegal gratification and the receipt occurs in a different jurisdiction from where the money originated, the jurisdiction for trial is determined by the place where the receipt and related substantive transactions occurred, not merely the place of origin of funds. Under CrPC Section 179, when an act is an offence by reason of both something done and a consequence ensued, the offence may be tried by a court within whose jurisdiction either the act was done or the consequence ensued. In cases involving criminal conspiracy spanning multiple jurisdictions with substantive offences occurring in multiple places, each set of offences may constitute main offences, and the court having jurisdiction over any of such places may try the case. At the charge framing stage, the court need only determine whether a prima facie case has been made out based on materials on record; detailed appreciation of evidence is reserved for the trial stage.
On this section: Where uncertainty exists about local area where offence was committed, it can be tried by court having jurisdiction over any such area
-
Vishwantaha Tantri vs The State of Delhi
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 178, 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: Provides exceptions to Section 177 when offence is uncertain in location, committed partly in multiple areas, is continuing, or consists of several acts in different areas; allows trial by court having jurisdiction over any such area
-
Ramesh Ajmani vs State of Uttarakhand
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 178, 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: Place of inquiry or 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 198
What have the courts held on Section 198 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Devendra Kishanlal Dagalia vs Dwarkesh Diamonds PVT LTD (25 Nov 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 178, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Provides that where offence consists of several acts in different local areas, any court with jurisdiction over one such area can inquire into or try the offence. Applied to establish jurisdiction in Section 138 cheque cases. Another 9 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2007 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 198 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 198, section 198 BNSS, section 198 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 10 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Devendra Kishanlal Dagalia vs Dwarkesh Diamonds PVT LTD (25 Nov 2013).
What should I read with Section 198 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward CrPC 178 (Place of inquiry or trial), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 198 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 198 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 198, 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.