Section 22 — Court with venue over the case
Statutory text (Thai original)
เมื่อความผิดเกิดขึ้น อ้างหรือเชื่อว่าได้เกิดขึ้นในเขตอำนาจของศาลใด ให้ชำระที่ศาลนั้น แต่ถ้า
(๑) เมื่อจำเลยมีที่อยู่ หรือถูกจับในท้องที่หนึ่งหรือเมื่อเจ้าพนักงานทำการสอบสวนในท้องที่หนึ่งนอกเขตของศาลดังกล่าวแล้ว จะชำระที่ศาลซึ่งท้องที่นั้น ๆ อยู่ในเขตอำนาจก็ได้
(๒) เมื่อความผิดเกิดขึ้นนอกราชอาณาจักรไทย ให้ชำระคดีนั้นที่ศาลอาญา ถ้าการสอบสวนได้กระทำลงในท้องที่หนึ่งซึ่งอยู่ในเขตของศาลใด ให้ชำระที่ศาลนั้นได้ด้วย
English translation
Where an offense has occurred, or is alleged or believed to have occurred, within the jurisdiction of any court, it shall be tried at that court; but (1) where the defendant has a residence in, or was arrested in, a locality, or where the officials conducted the inquiry in a locality, outside the jurisdiction of the said court, the case may be tried at the court within whose jurisdiction that locality lies; (2) where the offense occurred outside the Kingdom of Thailand, the case shall be tried at the Criminal Court; if the inquiry was conducted in a locality within the jurisdiction of any court, it may also be tried at that court.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 22 opens the chapter on the jurisdiction of the courts and sets the venue rules for criminal trials. The primary rule ties venue to the place of the offense, using the same broad connecting language as the inquiry rules: where the offense occurred, is alleged, or is believed to have occurred. Two alternatives follow: paragraph (1) allows trial where the defendant resides, was arrested, or was investigated, and paragraph (2) sends wholly extraterritorial offenses to the Criminal Court, with an option for the court of the place of inquiry. Because it is the general venue provision, it also fills gaps in specialized court statutes that contain no venue rule of their own, reaching municipal (kwaeng) courts and others through their governing acts.
Why this matters in practice
Venue matters early: filing in a court with no jurisdiction can lead to dismissal, and filing the same matter in two competent courts can be struck as a duplicate action. The connecting factors give some flexibility, so choosing the right forum can affect convenience, cost, and access to witnesses. For a private prosecutor or an injured person considering where to file, and for a defendant testing whether the chosen court was proper, it is worth confirming venue before the preliminary hearing. If you are unsure which court should hear your matter, see our guide on going to court in Thailand at /what-to-know-before-you-go-to-court-in-thailand/.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 609/2565 (2022)
Because the Act establishing municipal (kwaeng) courts contains no venue provision, Section 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code applies to determine which court has jurisdiction, through the municipal court and related procedure statutes.
The Court explained that the Act on the establishment of municipal courts has no venue rule, so Section 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code governs venue, applied through the municipal court act and the law extending municipal criminal procedure to provincial courts. It quoted the primary rule that a case is tried where the offense occurred or is believed to have occurred.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 4173/2562 (2019)
A court within whose jurisdiction the offense occurred, is alleged, or is believed to have occurred has authority to try the case under Section 22 paragraph one.
Because the relevant district lay within the jurisdiction of the Taling Chan Provincial Court, and the plaintiffs filed there as the court where the offense occurred or was believed to have occurred, the Court held that court had authority to try the case under Section 22 paragraph one.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3131/2562 (2019)
Where offenses in an earlier case and the present case both occurred within one court's jurisdiction under Section 22 paragraph one, they could be filed together at that court; filing the same criminal matter separately at two courts is a prohibited duplicate action.
Both the earlier and the present offenses fell within the jurisdiction of the Nakhon Si Thammarat Provincial Court, so the plaintiffs could have filed both at that court under Section 22 paragraph one. Filing the same criminal matter at two different first-instance courts as two overlapping cases was contrary to law.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Which court hears a criminal case in Thailand?
Under Section 22, normally the court where the offense occurred or is believed to have occurred. It may also be tried where the defendant resides, was arrested, or was investigated, and offenses committed abroad go to the Criminal Court.
Can the same criminal matter be filed in two different courts?
Where two courts each have venue under Section 22, filing the same matter in both can be struck down as a duplicate action. The proper course is to file in one competent court, or to seek a transfer.
Where is an offense committed outside Thailand tried?
Under Section 22(2), it is tried at the Criminal Court. If the inquiry was conducted within the jurisdiction of another court, it may also be tried at that court.