Surendra Singh and Others vs State of Rajasthan and Another

H.R. Panwar, J.—This criminal revision petition u/s 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ''the Code'' hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 30.8.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar (for short ''the trial court'' hereinafter) in Criminal Case No.396/2004 whereby the trial court framed the charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioners have filed the instant revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned and challan papers.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case instituted by the complainant for an occurrence which is alleged to have taken place outside the territorial jurisdiction of Rajasthan more particularly Sri Ganganagar. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that according to the complainant and the complaint also her statement u/s 161 of the Code, if any occurrence has taken place, it has taken place at Patiala (Punjab) and, therefore, the Court at Sri Ganganagar had no jurisdiction to try the case.

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant made a feeble attempt to show that the complainant was brought to her mother to Sri Ganganagar in the month of May 2003 and the fact that the dowry articles, which the complainant claims to be Stridhan were given to accused persons including the petitioners on 11.11.2001 at the time of marriage. Refuting the argument of the complainant, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even the marriage took place at Patiala (Punjab) and thereafter the complainant and her husband continued to be residing at Patiala and thereafter at Ludhiana.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties.

Complainant Revneet Kaur in her statement u/s 161 of the Code stated that on 11.11.2001, she was married to petitioner No. 1 Surendra Singh at Patiala. Her marriage with the petitioner No. 1 was got fixed by her Mausa Sunder Singh, resident of Ludhiana. At the time of marriage, her husband started demanding a car and for that she was being mentally harassed. She further stated that after about six months of the marriage, her husband took her to Ludhiana where he got employment in the month of May, 2003. Thereafter she became pregnant and gave birth to a child on 18.10.2003. She further stated that her husband, and parents-in-law were invited. On invitation, her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and Nanad came and said that we have not given vehicle in the marriage but now at the time of ceremony of ''Chhuchhak'' (a ceremony after delivery of first child) the vehicle may be given. In the month of July, 2004, her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law came then her parents and grandmother and grand-father advised her husband. Her parents-in-law stated that they did not need anything and said that she and her husband should live their married life happily. Her husband said that he would not harass her in future and took her to Patiala. Her entire belongings which were taken to Ludhiana were already brought to Patiala.

From the perusal of statement of the complainant, it is more than clear that no part of cause of action has arisen in district Sri Ganganagar or rather in the territory of Rajasthan. The allegations levelled by the complainant relate to either Patiala or Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioners have relied on a decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Y.Abraham Ajith and Others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another 2004(2) ACJ 547 (S.C.): 2004(4) CCC 466 (S.C.): 2004 SCC (Cri.) 2134. While explaining the meaning of cause of action, Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under:-

The expression "cause of action" is generally understood to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a court or a tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for sitting; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person. Thus, it consists of a bundle of facts, which give cause to enforce the legal inquiry for redress in a court of law. It must include some act done by the latter since in the absence of such an act no cause of action would possibly accrue or would arise. In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the proceeding including not only the alleged infraction, but also the infraction coupled with the right itself. Compendiously, the expression means every fact, which it would be necessary for the complainant to prove if traversed, in order to support his right of grievance to the judgment of the court. Every fact, which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence, which is necessary to prove such fact, comprises in "cause of action."

It was further held by the Apex Court that no part of cause of action arose in Chennai and, therefore, the Magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and the proceedings were quashed.

The instant case is squarely covered by the decision of Apex Court in Y.Abraham Ajith Vs. Inspector of Police (supra). In the instant case, no cause of action, even a part of cause of action arose at Sri Ganganagar and, therefore, the Court at Sri Ganganagar had no jurisdiction to try the case.

Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 30.8.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar is set aside. The proceedings against the petitioners are quashed and the petitioners are discharged.