DEEPA @ MUSKAN BHATIA Vs. AMIT KUMAR BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant complainant has filed this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dt. 3.8.2010 passed by Xth Additional Sessions Judge Indore, in Criminal Revision No. 110/2010 whereby allowing the criminal revision of the respondent No.1 to 4 the order dt. 27.1.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Indore, in Criminal Case No. 19122/2007 dismissing the application of the respondent filed under Section 177 read with Section 244 of the Cr.P.C. has been setaside and by allowing such application, the private complaint filed by the applicant has been directed to be returned to her to file the same before the Competent Court having the territorial jurisdiction over the matter.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that, the applicant herein filed a private complaint against the respondents in the aforesaid Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class for taking cognizance of the offence of Section 498-A and 406 of the IPC against the respondents. After entertaining such complaint and recording the depositions of the complainant and her witnesses under Section 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. the cognizance of such offence was taken by the Court against the respondents and they were summoned. In response of summons after appearance, the respondents have filed an application under Section 177 of the Cr.P.C. contending that the aforesaid Court of Indore, did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. On consideration, such application was dismissed by the Trial Court by order dt. 27.1.2010. Being dissatisfied by this order, the respondents herein filed the revision before the Session Court. On consideration, such revision was allowed and inter alia it was held that subsequent to the marriage of the complainant with the respondent No.1 Amit Kumar they resided at Katni and the alleged incident happened at Katni. It was also held that as per allegation in the complaint even in continuation any of the alleged offence was not committed by the respondents or any of them in the territorial jurisdiction of the aforesaid Court of Indore.

(3.) In view of such finding, the aforesaid direction to return the complaint to the complainant was given by the Session Court on which the applicant complainant has come to this Court with this revision.