RAJESH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed the present writ petition for quashing the F.I.R. relating to Case Crime No. 11 of 2005, under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 342, 506, I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Khukhundu, District Deoria.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended before this Court that so far as commission of offence under Section 304-B, I.P.C. is concerned, the place of occurrence is at Mumbai, therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction in view of the judgment reported in 2004(3) Apex Criminal 455 : 2004(3) RCR(Criminal) 988 : AIR 2004 SC 4286 (Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, Chennai). We have carefully considered such judgment. In the said judgment, we find that ordinarily the offence will be inquired into and tried by the Court within whose local jurisdiction the crime has been committed. The word "ordinarily" has been clarified in another judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2001(2) RCR(Criminal) 381 : 2001 (42) ACC 860 : (AIR 2001 SC 1490) (Mohan Baitha v. State of Bihar). We have considered the Sections 177 and 178 of Code of Criminal Procedure. We found that Section 177, Cr.P.C. speaks for inquiry and trial ordinarily to be held at the place given under such section. But Section 178 is very categorical in respect of the factual aspect of the matter herein. Factually, save and except Section 304-B, I.P.C. other sections are applicable in the place at Deoria, Uttar Pradesh and not at Bombay. Therefore, Section 178, Cr.P.C. will be categorical in this respect. Such section is quoted hereunder :

(3.) THEREFORE , the ratio of the judgment as reported in AIR 2004 SC 4286 (supra) is not applicable herein. From 2005(1) Apex Criminal 537 : 2005(2) RCR(Criminal) 68 : AIR 2005 SC 1989 (Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu) it appears that in respect of commission of offence between two places the third place i.e. place of residence cannot be the appropriate place for adjudication; meaning thereby two other places, where the commission was partly held, can be the appropriate jurisdiction. We have not called upon for forum selection between two places where the jurisdiction partly arose. Hence, in the instant case, a part of cause of action can be said to be arisen at the aforesaid place in the State.