JITENDRA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 31-1-2009 passed by Sessions Judge, nee much in Cr. Rev. No. 03/2009, which is arising out of the order dated 25-11-2008 passed by JMFC, Nee much in Cr. Case No. 1182/06 whereby the applications filed by the petitioners under Sections 177 and 178, Cr. PC was dismissed, was maintained the present petition has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that respondent prosecuted the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, IPC and under section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act before JMFC, Nee much. After taking the cognizance the petitioners made appearance before the learned Court below and moved an application under Section 177/178 of Cr. PC, wherein it was alleged that as per the complaint lodged by the complainant Smt. Varsha Rizwani the alleged offence has taken place at Jaijagat Colony, Indore, therefore the application filed by the petitioners be allowed and criminal case pending against the petitioners be dismissed holding that Court at Nee much has no jurisdiction. The application was contested by the respondent. After hearing the parties learned Trial Court dismissed the application against which a revision petition was filed which was dismissed, hence the present petition.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner argued at length and submits that impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal and deserves to be quashed. It is submitted that petitioner No. 1 is husband while petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are parents of petitioner No. 1. It is submitted that petitioner No. 4 is brother of petitioner No. 1 while petitioner No. 5 is grand-father aged 90 years and the petitioner No. 6 is aunt of petitioner No. 1 residing at Gujrat. It is submitted that in the complaint lodged by the complainant it is nowhere stated that any part of the offence has taken place at Nee much. It is also submitted that in the FIR itself it is mentioned that place of offence is at Indore where the petitioner No. 1 is residing and which is the matrimonial house of the complainant. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case there was no justification in dismissing the application and revision filed by the petitioners. Learned Counsel further submits that Nee much is a place which is far away from Indore. It is submitted that parents of the petitioner No. 1 are quite old while grand-father of petitioner No. 1 who is petitioner No. 5 herein is of 80 years of age. Reliance was placed on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Y. Abraham Vs. Inspector of Police, (2004) 8 SCC 100, wherein hon'ble Apex Court has observed that- Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed, held, is the general rule- However, the said rule is subject to several exceptions- No such exception applicable to the case at hand- Held the magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as no part of cause of action for initiation of proceedings against accused arose within his local jurisdiction. It was further held that lack of jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned to deal with the matter in a complaint filed under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC and Section 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against husband and his relations by the wife at place C where she came to stay after leaving her husband's house at place N- All the offence alleged to have taken place at N-Said offences not continuing ones- No part of cause of action arose at place c- Hence, considering Sections 177 and 178, Cr. PC, held, the Magistrate at C had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and quashed the proceedings and complainant was given liberty to file complaint in Appropriate Court.