MD.SHAHABUDDIN @ SHAHABUDDIN @ CHHOTU Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) IN this application, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order, dated 4.3.2005 whereby and whereunder the Court below has taken cognizance under Ss. 377, 342 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Counsel for the petitioner has raised only one point and it is his submission that the offence in question as per the recital in the First Information Report has been committed at Jai Nagar and therefore, the Court at Madhubani had no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance.

(3.) FROM a bare perusal of the First Information Report, it is clear that the offence has been committed both at Jai Nagar and at Madhubani. At this stage, the Court below while taking cognizance will not be guided as to whether the major part of the offence was committed at Jai Nagar or that only some part of the offence was committed at Madhubani. In this context, there is a clear provision under Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which says "Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed". Then, Section 179 of the Code further lays down that "when an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued". Thus, the contention of the petitioner that the earlier part of the offence being alleged was committed at Jai Nagar and, therefore, the latter part of the offence running between a period of nine months cannot be looked into by the Madhubani Court is absolutely a misconceived submission.