RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant before this Court is the husband of private respondent No. 2 Smt. Anjali. The private respondent had lodged the First Information Report at Police Station Ramnagar, under Sections 323/504/506/498A of I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the present applicant as well as against his three sisters, namely, Rajkumari, Smt. Meena and Smt. Ishwari. Thereafter the applicant was granted bail by the court below. Consequently, a chargesheet was filed against the applicant and his three sisters. Thereafter the applicant moved an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. for discharging where the main contention of the applicant was that no cause of action or part cause of action has arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of Ramnagar or Uttarakhand. As per the averments made in the First Information Report, the entire allegations pertain to Delhi. However, respondent No. 2 moved a complaint against the applicant at Ramnagar, which is her parental house. The application (under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.) of the applicant has been rejected by the court concerned. Against the said rejection, the applicant preferred revision, which was also dismissed. Hence the present application before this Court.

(2.) FROM the perusal of the orders passed by the courts below it appears that the reasoning adopted by both the courts is that since the chargesheet has been filed, the matter has to be proceeded. The learned Senior Advocate Ms. Pushpa Joshi for the complainant/respondent No. 2 has tried to argue that Section 498A of I.P.C. is a continuance offence although she was largely "tortured" at Delhi, but this has continued at her parental place at Ramnagar, District Nainital as well. However, from the perusal of the First Information Report it is apparently clear that no cause of action, whatsoever, has taken place at Ramnagar or Uttarakhand.

(3.) IN terms of the specific provision contained in Sections 177 and 178 of Cr.P.C., the court asked both the counsels as to what part of action or continuing offence occurred in the territorial jurisdiction of Uttarakhand, but no satisfactory reply to this query of the court has been given by the either side.