MUKESH PATHAK @ PINTU Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A.

(2.) Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence took place within the jurisdiction of the C.J.M., Azamgarh and therefore, the complaint case could not have been proceeded by the A.C.J.M, Court No.12, Azamgarh. He submits that the entire allegations giving rise to commission of offence under Section 498- A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. took place in Jaunpur District and therefore, only the Court of Jaunpur has the jurisdiction and not the Court at Azamgarh. He submits that Section 182(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 has no application on the facts of the present case inasmuch as it is only with respect to offences under Section 494 and 495 I.P.C.

(3.) Learned A.G.A. submits that as per allegations in the complaint, the opposite party no.3 was beaten by the applicants and they brought her to Azamgarh where near the temple in the Village, she was abused and thrown out from the vehicle by the applicants. He, therefore, submits that there was continuity in the criminal act of the applicants which was committed within the District Azamgarh and therefore, the Court below is wholly justified to hold that the Court at Azamgarh has the jurisdiction.