RAVI PRATAP RAI Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case called out in the revised list.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for State and perused the record.

(3.) It is contended that court at Gorakhpur has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and he has been wrongly summoned in the matter. In this context, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that as per the version in FIR, the incident had taken place at Calcutta, where father-in-law and mother-in-law as well as the wife and her husband were residing on account of the fact that the father-in-law Hari Bhusan Rai was in police service at Calcutta and on this count, he submitted that court at Gorakhpur has no jurisdiction to entertain to take cognizance of the offence.