SHEELA KAUSHIK Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Smt. Sheela Kaushik (claiming herself to be complainant), challenging the order dated 12.11.1994, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, vide which of the revision petition filed by the accused (respondent No.2) against the order dated 7.4.1994, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (ordering framing of charge) was set aside and it was held that the Court at Jind had no jurisdiction.

(2.) The facts, which are relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that Raj Kumar father of Smt. Sheela Kaushik (present petitioner) filed a complaint on the basis of which FIR No. 304 dated 10.8.1993 under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC was registered in PS City Jind, against accused respondent No. 2 Gianeshwar. After the completion of investigation, challan was submitted in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind. When the case came up for consideration before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, on the question of charge, an objection was raised by the defence counsel that the Courts at Jind had no jurisdiction, inasmuch as the alleged harassment etc. had taken place at Narwana and that no cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of And. After hearing both sides, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 7.4.1994; was of the opinion that since the complainants were staying at And, as such the Courts at Jind had territorial jurisdiction in the matter. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, accused filed revision petition before the Sessions Court. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides, vide order dated 12.11.1994, found that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction at Jind and as such Courts at Jind had no jurisdiction in the matter. Resultantly, the revision petition was allowed, holding that the courts at Jind had no jurisdiction in the matter. However, it was made clear that complainant would be at liberty to seek the remedy in the matter before the proper court. It was further directed that the concerned Magistrate shall also consider the matter regarding condonation of delay, if any. Aggrieved against the same, present revision petition has been filed by Smt. Sheela Kaushik, claiming herself to be the complainant. The revision petition was admitted.

(3.) 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.