PIYUSH RAMSINGHANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 401 C.P.C. against the order dated 19.02.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court (Sati Nivaran), Rajasthan and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur in Criminal Revision No.319/2006 whereby the order under Sec. 177 Cr.P.C. passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 15, Jaipur has been set aside by the revisional court in Criminal Revision Petition No.319/2006.

(2.) Briefly stated, the necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision petitioner that on a complaint lodged by non -petitioner Smt. Yogita Rani Singhani wife of petitioner Piyush Ram Singhani resident of 111/97, Agrawal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur in police station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, FIR No.57/2006 was registered under Ss. 498A and 406 IPC. Charge -sheet was filed. The learned trial court vide its order dated 20.09.2006 on the application of the petitioner filed under Sec. 177 Cr.P.C. after hearing both the sides passed an order to the effect that the court at Jaipur had no jurisdiction and prosecution was free to move before the competent court for trial of the accused in accordance with law. This order was challenged before the learned revisional court. The learned revisional court vide its order dated 19.02.2007 allowed the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the learned trial court. Hence, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the facts stated in the FIR/complaint would disclose that no demand of dowry or harassment was made to the non -petitioner at Jaipur, therefore, the Jaipur court had no jurisdiction. It is also contended that the learned Magistrate after taking into consideration the entire facts allowed the application moved under Sec. 177 Cr.P.C. and the learned revisional court in a cursory manner allowed the application and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Learned counsel has read over both the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below and also the complaint. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Y.Abraham Ajith and others v/s. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another,, 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 547 (S.C.) :, 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 466 (S.C.) :, 2004 Cr.L.J. 4180, Manish Ratan & Ors. v/s. State of M.P. & Anr., 2006(3) Apex Court Judgments 672 (S.C.) :, 2007(1) Criminal Court Cases 126 (S.C.) :, 1 (2007) CCR 8 (SC), Chatar Singh v/s. State of M.P., 2007(1) Criminal Court Cases 1022 (S.C.) :, 1 (2007) CCR 12 (SC), Pankaj Saxena and others v/s. State of Rajasthan, 2008(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 64 and Narain Singh v/s. State of Rajasthan & Shyamlal Jat, 2008(1) C.L.R. (Raj.) 67.