NIKHIL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.7.2011 whereby the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beawar, District Ajmer, has rejected his application under Section 177 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is equally aggrieved by the order dated 03.09.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Beawar, District Ajmer, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order dated 25.7.2011. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 15.10.2012 Ms. Deepti, the petitioner's wife filed a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Beawar. The learned Magistrate sent the complaint for further investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On the basis of the complaint a FIR, FIR No. 516/2010, was registered for offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323 IPC. Subsequently, the police filed a charge -sheet. The petitioner moved an application under Section 177 Cr.P.C. challenging the filing of the charge -sheet. However, by order dated 25.07.2011, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said application. Consequently, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Judge. However, by order dated 03.09.2012 the learned Judge also dismissed the revision petition. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(2.) MR . Atul Kumar Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the Court at Beawar does not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear the case as none of the offences was ever committed at Beawar. In order to buttress his contention learned counsel has relied upon the case of Manish Ratan & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Anr. : 2007(1) RLW 784 and on the case of Mohammad Ameen & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. : 2009(2) Cr. L.R. [Raj.] 1686.

(3.) A bare perusal of the orders clearly reveal that according to the complainant, while she was residing at Beawar, on 26.9.2010 the petitioner, along with some of his family members, came to her house and wanted to take her away. They also demanded dowry. They also assaulted her family members. Therefore, according to the learned Magistrate, the demand for dowry was made and cruelty was inflicted in Beawar itself. Hence, the court at Beawar would have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case.