1. SOME BASIC CONSIDERATIONS
Under Section 197 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 177 CrPC), the foundational principle of criminal jurisdiction mandates that every offense shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
This rule balances administrative practicality and justice, ensuring that trials occur near the crime scene where witnesses are readily accessible, logistics are simplified for both defense and prosecution, and local public security is reinforced.
However, the statutory inclusion of the qualifier “ordinarily” allows for legislative flexibility through Sections 198–204 BNSS, which prescribe cumulative alternative venues for multi-jurisdictional or complex offenses to prevent procedural gridlock.
While these rules govern criminal offense trials and dictate proper police station jurisdiction under Section 175(1) BNSS, Section 175(2) explicitly protects investigative actions from being challenged solely due to a lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Crucially, these venue guidelines apply strictly to criminal offenses under Chapter XIV and do not extend to non-criminal proceedings such as family maintenance, public order, or peace-keeping security orders.
2. SPECIAL PROVISIONS PROVIDING FOR ALTERNATIVE VENUES
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 provides flexible venue provisions under Sections 198–203 to resolve jurisdictional hurdles when an offense spans multiple regions or involves a complex series of actions.
Under Section 198 BNSS, when the exact location of an offense is uncertain, committed partly in different local areas, constitutes a continuing act (such as a criminal conspiracy), or consists of several acts performed in various locations, any court having jurisdiction over any of those local areas is competent to inquire into or try the matter.
Section 199 BNSS extends venue options to places where a vital statutory consequence ensues—such as trying a homicide case either in the jurisdiction where the fatal wound was inflicted or where the victim ultimately succumbed.
Furthermore, specific offenses enjoy expanded jurisdictional choices under Sections 200–202 BNSS:
Abetment and Stolen Property: Abetment may be tried where the instigation occurred or where the abetted crime was committed (provided the crime was actually committed), while receiving stolen goods can be tried where stolen or where dishonestly received/retained.
Dacoity and Custody Escape: Charges of dacoity, dacoity with murder, or escaping from custody can be tried where committed or where the accused is found.
Kidnapping and Abduction: These may be tried where the act was committed, or where the victim was conveyed, concealed, or detained.
Theft, Extortion, Robbery, and Breach of Trust: Property offenses can be tried where the crime occurred, where the stolen property was possessed/retained, or where the property was required to be returned or accounted for by the accused based on party stipulations or trust arrangements.
Cheating and Electronic Communications: Cheating committed via electronic communications, letters, or telecommunication messages can be tried either in the local area from where the messages were sent or where they were received. If cheating involves inducing delivery of property, it can be tried where delivered by the victim or received by the accused.
Bigamy: Offenses punishable under Section 82 of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 can be tried where committed, where the offender last resided with their spouse by the first marriage, or where the first wife has taken up permanent residence after the commission of the offense.
Finally, Section 203 BNSS allows offenses committed during a journey or voyage to be tried by any court through whose local jurisdiction the person or property passed, including the court at the final destination.
In contrast, cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 remain anchored specifically to the territorial jurisdiction of the drawee bank that returned the cheque unpaid, unless tried together with other connected offenses in a single transaction under Sections 204 or 243 of the BNSS.
3. SPECIAL RULE IN CASES OF JOINDER OF CHARGES AND JOINDER OF OFFENDERS
Section 204 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) [formerly Section 184 CrPC] introduces a special procedural rule for the joinder of charges and joinder of offenders, providing a consolidated choice of venue for multi-offense or multi-accused proceedings.
When an individual commits multiple crimes that qualify for a single joint trial under Sections 242, 243, or 244 BNSS (formerly Sections 219, 220, or 221 CrPC), or when multiple co-accused individuals are tried together under Section 246 BNSS (formerly Section 223 CrPC), the case may be inquired into or tried by any court competent to exercise jurisdiction over any single one of those offenses.
Consequently, the joinder provisions under Sections 242–246 BNSS operate as recognized legal exceptions to the general jurisdictional rule under Section 197 BNSS (formerly Section 177 CrPC)—which ordinarily mandates trying an offense strictly where it occurred—thereby allowing the prosecution to select a single venue to efficiently adjudicate connected crimes or co-defendants in a unified proceeding.
4. POWER OF THE STATE TO ORDER CASES TO BE TRIED IN DIFFERENT SESSIONS DIVISIONS
Under Section 205 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the State Government possesses extraordinary statutory authority to bypass standard venue rules (Sections 197–204 BNSS) and direct that a case or class of cases committed in one district be tried in another sessions division.
This power is specifically designed for high-stakes scenarios where public interest or safety—such as maintaining law and order during a high-profile case—demands a change of venue.
To maintain judicial hierarchy, the State Government’s directives cannot override pre-existing orders set by the High Court or the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, the High Court and Supreme Court hold ultimate authority under Sections 446 and 447 BNSS to modify, supersede, or set aside any transfer directives issued by the executive, ensuring that judicial fairness remains paramount.
5. HIGH COURT'S POWER TO DECIDE IN CASE OF DOUBT, THE PLACE OF ENQUIRY OR TRIAL
Under Section 206 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), a clear legal mechanism is established to resolve jurisdictional conflicts when two or more courts take cognizance of the exact same offense.
When a question arises regarding which court should proceed with the inquiry or trial, the matter is decided by the shared High Court if all the competing courts fall under its jurisdiction.
However, if the courts are subordinate to different High Courts across different states, the decision authority lies with the High Court within whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the legal proceedings were first commenced.
Once the decision is made by the competent High Court, all other duplicate proceedings across other courts must be discontinued immediately to maintain judicial discipline and avoid redundant trials.
6. MAGISTRATE’S POWER TO INQUIRE INTO AN OFFENCE COMMITTED OUTSIDE HIS LOCAL JURISDICTION
Under Section 207(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class is empowered to initiate a preliminary inquiry against a person located within their local jurisdiction who has committed a triable offense elsewhere in India or abroad.
Although the Magistrate cannot try the offense directly, they can compel the suspect’s appearance and either transfer them in custody to the competent Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction or release them on a bail bond to appear before that court—provided the offense is not punishable by death or life imprisonment and the accused satisfies bail requirements.
Furthermore, under Section 207(2) BNSS, if uncertainty arises as to which specific Magistrate among multiple options holds proper jurisdiction over the case, the inquiring Magistrate must report the matter to the High Court to receive binding directions.
7. POWER TO INQUIRE INTO OR TRY OFFENCES COMMITTED OUTSIDE INDIA
Under Section 208 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) [formerly Section 188 CrPC], Indian courts possess extraterritorial jurisdiction over offenses committed outside India by Indian citizens or by non-citizens on Indian-registered ships or aircraft, allowing such cases to be handled where the accused is found or where the case is registered in India.
However, the proviso to Section 208 BNSS mandates that no formal inquiry or trial can commence without the prior sanction of the Central Government, a requirement designed to prevent double jeopardy while ensuring that sham foreign acquittals do not shield offenders from justice.
As clarified through judicial interpretations such as Mohd. Sajeed v. State of Kerala, this restriction applies strictly to court inquiries and trials, permitting police to freely investigate and collect evidence prior to sanction.
Furthermore, under Section 209 BNSS [formerly Section 189 CrPC], the Central Government may authorize Indian trial courts to receive physical or electronic copies of depositions and exhibits recorded by foreign judicial officers or Indian consular representatives as admissible evidence, streamlining the prosecution of extraterritorial crimes.
8. CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE RULES REGARDING LOCAL JURISDICTION
The jurisprudence surrounding criminal venue distinguishes between inherent subject-matter jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction.
While a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction invalidates a trial completely, procedural errors regarding local territorial boundaries under Sections 197–208 BNSS do not render proceedings or police investigations automatically void.
Under Section 175(2) BNSS and Section 508 BNSS (formerly Section 462 CrPC), trials conducted in an incorrect local area are curable irregularities unless the non-compliance actively leads to a “failure of justice” that deprives the accused of a fair defense.
Because territorial limits exist primarily for administrative efficiency and party convenience rather than judicial competency, courts treat venue defects leniently after a trial concludes.
However, Section 508 BNSS cannot be invoked to permit forum shopping; if a timely objection regarding local jurisdiction is raised prior to or at the commencement of trial, the court must address it rather than proceeding knowingly without territorial authority.