VIPIN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 13.09.2005, whereby cognizance of the offence under Sections 498A & 406 has been taken against the petitioner followed by dismissal of revision petition vide order dated 22.05.2006.

(2.) Learned counsel submits that without having territorial jurisdiction, not only the complaint was registered but cognizance of the offence has been taken against the petitioner. The occurrence took place at Jaipur, thus the court at Kota had no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. The complaint does not disclose any occurrence in the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Kota but without considering the aforesaid, impugned orders have been passed rather facts of the case have not been considered while deciding the issue of territorial jurisdiction. Hence, both the impugned orders be quashed and set aside. A reference of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr., 2004 CRLJ 4180 has been given apart from the judgment of this court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.,2006 2 WLC(Raj) 398 wherein in the similar circumstance, the impugned orders were quashed finding it to be without jurisdiction.

(3.) Learned counsel for complainant opposed the petition. He submits that the FIR discloses occurrence at Kota and otherwise offence under Section 406 IPC was made out as "stridhan" was not returned. The aforesaid aspect has been considered by the revisional court while passing the impugned order. The issue of territorial jurisdiction of the court was considered in the light of the facts available on record, thus interference in the impugned order may not be made.