Place of inquiry or trial
Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with place of inquiry or trial. 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 s The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(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 178, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 198 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 1
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… A copy of the order has been placed on record. 3. To appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as by the learned APP for the State, the provisions of Sections 177 & 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) are to be kept in mind. Sections 177 & 178 read as follows: > "177. 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. 178. Place of …
Questions about Section 178
What have the courts held on Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Devendra Kishanlal Dagalia vs Dwarkesh Diamonds PVT LTD (25 Nov 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: 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 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
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: CRPC 178, section 178 CRPC, section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 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 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 198 (Place of inquiry or trial), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 178, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.