TAHIRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner (Smt. Tahira) and the learned AGA for the Respondents and perused the record.

(2.) This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 9.11.2009 (Annexure No. 4) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidharth Nagar and order dated 21.5.2010 (Annexure No. 5) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Sidharth Nagar in criminal revision No. 185/2009.

(3.) The facts of the case are that the Petitioner moved an application under Section 156 (3) Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidharth Nagar, which was registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 1203/2009. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that the occurrence took place in Bombay, therefore, he had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure Learned Additional Sessions Judge was also of the same view and he accordingly dismissed the revision. The Additional Sessions Judge placed reliance on Manish Ratan and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.,2007 1 SCC 267 and held that the offence of cruelty for the dowry is not a continuous offence. In my opinion, the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the facts of the aforesaid case. In that case the victim had been given maltreatment for dowry in the house of her husband. She left the house of her husband and started to live in the house of her parents within the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Datiya, Madhya Pradesh. In that case there was no allegation that any torture, harassment or demand of dowry was made during the period the victim had been living with her parents, and the entire cause of action had arisen in the house of her husband within the local limits of the Courts at Jabalpur. In this view of the matter, the Supreme Court held that the Court at Datiya had no jurisdiction. In my opinion, in the present case, the allegations are that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty and harassment in the house of her husband for dowry. Her husband's house situates within the territorial jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidharth Nagar. It was also stated in the application that the accused persons, with the intention of killing the deceased, took her to Bombay and killed her there and buried the dead body, therefore, according to the allegations made in the petition filed under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure the torture and harassment to the deceased was given within the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Sidharth Nagar and continued that torture even in Bombay, therefore, it cannot be contended that the entire cause of action arose only in Bombay. According to the allegations made in the complaint, a part cause of action arose well within the jurisdiction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidharth Nagar. The question of jurisdiction should be decided on the basis of allegations made in the complaint and not on any other basis. If the complaint allegations are taken at their face value, it cannot be inferred that no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the C.J.M. Sidharth Nagar.