Section 197

Territorial jurisdiction rules like this one have existed since the earliest Indian criminal procedure codes (dating back to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and carried forward in 1973). The idea is practical: evidence, witnesses, the police station, and local knowledge of the crime scene are all usually found where the offence occurred. Trying a case there saves cost, reduces hardship for witnesses, and keeps the process efficient. The word 'ordinarily' signals that this is the default rule, not an absolute one — later provisions carve out exceptions for offences spanning multiple places, continuing offences, or offences committed partly outside a court's area.

Courts have long treated the predecessor provision (Section 177 of the CrPC, 1973) as a rule of convenience rather than a rigid jurisdictional bar. In Purushottam Dass Dalmia v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court held that where an offence is a continuing one or has components in multiple places, more than one court may have jurisdiction. In Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, the Supreme Court clarified that jurisdiction depends on where the actual ingredients of the offence occurred, not merely where a complaint happens to be filed. These interpretations continue to guide how 'local jurisdiction' is understood under the new Sanhita, since the language of Section 197 mirrors the earlier provision closely.

• Myth: A case can only ever be tried in the exact place where the crime happened, with no exceptions.
  Fact: The word 'ordinarily' means this is the default rule. Later provisions in the Sanhita allow trials elsewhere for offences committed across multiple locations, continuing offences, or certain special situations.
• Myth: The victim or complainant can choose which court hears the case based on personal convenience.
  Fact: Courts have held that jurisdiction depends on where the offence's essential facts occurred, not on where the complainant or a witness happens to live.