RAM PRASAD Vs. URMILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) APPLICANTS have filed this revision against the order dated 2.3.2007, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori, in Criminal Revision No. 71/05, whereby the order dated 15.4.2005, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Dindori, in Criminal Case No. 192/04, was set aside and it was held that the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dindori, had jurisdiction to try the case.

(3.) ON 29.11.2004 applicant moved an application contending that though according to written complaint made by the complainant Urmila to Shahpura Police, place of occurrence and incidents had been shown to be Pune (Maharashtra) and Jabalpur, the investigation in the case was illegally conducted by Shahpura Police and the charge sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dindori. Counsel submits that no act of cruelty was committed in village Shahpura, therefore, Courts at Dindori have no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial. Learned counsel placed reliance on the case Manish Ratan and others v. State of M.P. and others [2007 (1) JLJ 198 = 2007 (1) SCC (Cri) 336] wherein it has been held that every offence is to be ordinarily enquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. The offence under section 498-A of IPC cannot be held to be a continuing one, only because the complainant is forced to leave hei matrimonial home.