BINA DEY Vs. PRATIBHA DEY BAIDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Dasgupta and Mr.. I. A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) In this revision, u/S. 482, Cr PC, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the complaint in C. R. Case No. 2035/2000 pending in the court of SDJM, Silchar. This is a complaint u/S. 498A, IPC, filed by the wife. The quashing has been sought mainly on the ground that the court at Silchar has got no jurisdiction to try the matter as at the relevant time the parties were living at Mariani in the District of Jorhat. It is submitted that as the alleged incident of cruelty took place in the District of Jorhat, in view of the provisions of S. 181, Cr. PC, the Court at Silchar has got no jurisdiction to try the matter. In support of the submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mohan Lal v. State, reported in 2000 Cri LJ 3762, wherein the Court held that as the alleged act or act of cruelty had taken place in Himachal Pradesh, the Court at Delhi where the wife is residing at present, has no territorial jurisdiction to try the offence.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand placed reliance on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Vijai Ratan sharma v. State of U.P. reported in 1988 Cri. L. J. 1581. A similar view was taken by the Rajasthan High Court that an offence u/S. 498-A. IPC, is a continuing offence. In the case of Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1998 Cri LJ 554, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court held as follows :-