SATISH KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally at the motion hearing stage with the consent of both parties As directed on last date of hearing Mr. A. Kakani submitted the case diary of the case of Crime No. 88/2005 of Mahila Thana, Indore registered under Sections 498A, 506, 406 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

(2.) Mr. Mukhati Advocate submits that as per allegations made in the FIR no part of the offence was committed at Indore and, therefore, the Court at Indore has no jurisdiction to try the case. He has further submitted that just to create the jurisdiction in Indore Court a line has been added the statements of the complainants and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C., to the effect that accused persons came to Indore and harassed and threatened the complainant here also.

(3.) Mr. Mukhati relied upon the reported case of Supreme Court Abraham Ajith and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai AIR 2004 SC 4286.