ABDUL KHALIK Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused petitioner, who is facing trial in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, No. 3 (North), Kota, for the offence u/Ss. 498-A and 406 IPC.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an application before the learned Magistrate, pleading that there was no jurisdiction vested with the learned Magistrate to try the case because none of the acts as alleged against the accused petitioner constitute any offence at Kota. It was submitted that whatever acts of cruelty were alleged against the accused petitioner had been committed at New Delhi and, as such, the Court at Kota did not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The application of the accused petitioner was rejected by the learned Court below vide order dated 8.5.2006. Aggrieved of the said rejection, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition.

(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid statement discloses that the marriage between the parties took place on 21st May, 2001. The complainant has not stated as to where the marriage took place, though it has been argued that the marriage took place at Kota. Her statement also reveals that certain dowry articles were given to the complainant, but the complainant has specifically stated that" <IMG>JUDGEMENT_2449_RAJLW3_2012Image2.jpg</IMG> Thus the statement of the complainant is that she and her husband were having the dowry items jointly at New Delhi. It is not the case of the complainant that she entrusted the dowry items to her husband at Kota, rather the statement reveals that the dowry articles were jointly in possession of both the spouses at New Delhi. Ultimately, the complainant alleges that her brother came to meet her in Delhi on 30.6.2004 and there her husband and her mother-in-law beat her and turned her out of the house and that her dowry articles were retained at Delhi and were not returned despite the demand made therefor. The only conclusion which could be arrived at from the statement of the complainant as well as the statements of other witnesses of the complainant is that the articles of the complainant which were lying in the joint possession of husband and wife were retained by the husband and were not returned despite the demand being made at Delhi. Thus, the act of the accused, even if the same constitutes the offence of Sec. 406 IPC, was committed at Delhi.