Nikhil vs State

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.7.2011 whereby the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beawar, District Ajmer, has rejected his application u/s 177 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is equally aggrieved by the order dated 03.09.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Beawar, District Ajmer, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order dated 25.7.2011. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 15.10.2012 Ms. Deepti, the petitioner''s wife filed a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Beawar. The learned Magistrate sent the complaint for further investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. On the basis of the complaint a FIR, FIR No. 516/2010, was registered for offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323 IPC. Subsequently, the police filed a charge-sheet. The petitioner moved an application u/s 177 Cr.P.C. challenging the filing of the charge-sheet. However, by order dated 25.07.2011, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said application. Consequently, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Judge. However, by order dated 03.09.2012 the learned Judge also dismissed the revision petition. Hence, this petition before this Court.

Mr. Atul Kumar Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the Court at Beawar does not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear the case as none of the offences was ever committed at Beawar. In order to buttress his contention learned counsel has relied upon the case of Manish Ratan and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Another, and on the case of Mohammad Ameen and Another Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Another

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders.

A bare perusal of the orders clearly reveal that according to the complainant, while she was residing at Beawar, on 26.9.2010 the petitioner, along with some of his family members, came to her house and wanted to take her away. They also demanded dowry. They also assaulted her family members. Therefore, according to the learned Magistrate, the demand for dowry was made and cruelty was inflicted in Beawar itself. Hence, the court at Beawar would have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case.

It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that if a part of cause of action arises and part of offence is committed within the territorial jurisdiction of a Court, then that court would have the jurisdiction to try the case. Since the offence u/s 498A IPC has occurred at Beawar, obviously the court would have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case.

Moreover, admittedly the marriage between the parties had taken place at Beawar, the ''stridhan'' was entrusted to the petitioners and the petitioner''s family at Beawar. Therefore, u/s 181(4) Cr.P.C. the Court at Beawar would have the territorial jurisdiction to try the same.

The cases relied upon by the learned counsel do not rush to the rescue of the petitioner. For, in the case of Manish Ratan & Ors (Supra), it was alleged that the offences u/s 498A and 406 were committed at Jabalpur. However, the case was filed at Datia. Therefore, the Apex Court was of the opinion that the Court at Datia did not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case. However, as mentioned above, in the present case, under the provisions of Section 181(4) Cr.P.C. the court at Beawar would have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case.

Furthermore in the case of Mohammad Ameen & Anr. (Supra) the parties had stayed at Jaipur or at Kapasan. The offences were alleged to have taken place either at Jaipur or at Kapasan. Yet, the case was filed at Kekdi in District Ajmer. Therefore, this Court was of the opinion that since the offences had not occurred at Kekdi in District Ajmer, the Court at Kekdi would not have the jurisdiction to try the case. However, in the present case since part of the offence u/s 498A and 406 IPC have taken place at Beawar, therefore, the courts at Beawar would have the jurisdiction to try the case. Thus, neither of the two cases cited above are relevant for the present case. For the reasons stated above, this court does not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned orders. The petition is, hereby, dismissed.