NEELAM SHARMA Vs. VED PRAKASH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sh. G.D. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. The sole respondent was duly served with notice of this revision issued pursuant to the order dated October 10,1991. He has, however, not appeared either in person or through any counsel. I, therefore, proceed to hear Sh G.D. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and dispose of the revision petition finally. The two petitioners, claiming to be the wife and son of respondent Ved Prakash Sharma, instituted proceedings in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla by presenting a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on June 16, 1989. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken the view, in his order dated June II, 1991 which is under challenge in the present revision, that the petition was being dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction and it should have been filed either in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Karsog where the petitioners were residing at the time of filing of the petition or in the Court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, in whose jurisdiction the respondent resides.

(2.) Section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in terms, provides that proceedings under that section may be taken against any person in any district where, inter alia he resides.

(3.) It is not disputed that respondent Ved Prakash Sharma resides in Tehsil Kumarsain which is a part of Shimla District. As such, the proceedings could have been validly instituted by the present petitioners in the Court of-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla. The above view finds support from the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Ramnath Sardar v. Rekharani Sardar which was rendered in respect of section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898, akin to Section 125 Cr. P.C.