Om Prakash Singh Tanwar vs State of Rajasthan and Another

R.S. Chauhan, J.

BY THE COURT:

Aggrieved by the order dated 7.8.2010, passed by the Additional District & Session Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby he has quashed and set aside the order dated 16.05.2009, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial magistrate, First Class No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur, the Petitioner has approached this Court.

The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the complainant-Respondent No. 2 against the Petitioner for offences u/s 199, 430, 493, 494, 495 and 496 IPC. The statement of the complainant and her witnesses were recorded. After hearing the complainant, vide order dated 16.05.2009, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint. Against the order dated 16.05.2009, the Respondent No. 2 filed a revision petition before the learned Judge. However, vide order dated 7.8.2010, the learned Judge allowed the revision petition. Hence, this petition before this Court.

Mr. Amrit Prasad Sharma, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has vehemently contended that as offences had occurred in Jodhpur, the courts in Jaipur do not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the same. Therefore, the learned Judge was not justified in quashing and setting aside the order dated 16.05.2009 passed by the Magistrate.

On the other hand, Mr. Javed Chaudhary, the learned Public Prosecutor, has contended that according to the complainant, the offence of cheating and other offences started in Jaipur and continued while the complainant was staying with the Petitioner at Jodhpur. Therefore, the part of cause of action arose in Jaipur. Hence, the court in Jaipur does have the jurisdiction to try the case.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the complaint filed by the complainant.

In the complaint, the complainant has stated that her love affair with the Petitioner began, in the year 2007, in Jaipur. It is in Jaipur that he gave her the impression that he not only belongs to a good family, but also happens to be a bachelor. Believing on his assurance that he will marry her, she left her parental home on 11.04.2007. She resided with the Petitioner till 17.06.2007 in Jaipur. It is during this period of two months that she claims that he took her to a temple, married her, and had physical relationship with her while treating her to be his lawful wedded wife. On 17.06.2007, the couple shifted from Jaipur to Jodhpur. According to the complainant, on 29.06.2008, the Petitioner married her in Arya Samaj Temple. Subsequently, his behavior with her changed dramatically. He started to physically and mentally torture her. It is at Jodhpur that he revealed to her that he was already married and had three children, who are resided with the parents.

A bare perusal of the complaint clearly reveals that the offences initially began in Jaipur and continued in Jodhpur. According to Section 177 Code of Criminal Procedure, "ordinary the place of inquiry and trial is before the court within whose local jurisdiction the offence has been committed". However, According to Section 178 Code of Criminal Procedure, if the offence has been committed within several local areas, even area where it was partly committed, the court of that particular area would have the jurisdiction to try the case. In the present case, the offences were initially committed in Jaipur and were continued in Jodhpur. Therefore, clearly u/s 178 Code of Criminal Procedure, the courts in Jaipur would also have the jurisdiction to try the case. The learned Judge has noticed the fact that part of the offence was committed in Jaipur. Therefore, he was justified in holding that the court in Jaipur would have the jurisdiction to try the case. Hence, the learned Judge was legally justified in quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate.

Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. Consequently, the stay petition also stands dismissed.