SUNITA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.07.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has set aside the cognizance order dated 16.01.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No.20, Jaipur City, Jaipur.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 190 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate No.20, Jaipur City, Jaipur against the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. THE said complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the concerned police station. THE police registered a FIR, FIR No.78/2006 against the accused respondents for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. Police Submitted a challan against the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for the above mentioned offences before the Judicial Magistrate No.20, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Vide order dated 16.01.2008, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

(3.) MR. Vivek Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has emphasized the fact that, according to the complaint filed by the petitioner, after she had left the matrimonial home and had come back to the parental home at Jaipur, the respondents used to call her and used to demand dowry over the phone. The mere phone conversation would indicate that part of the offence has arisen in Jaipur. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance. Since the said conversation had taken place in Jaipur, the learned Judge, on the other hand, was unjustified in holding that the Court at Jaipur do not have territorial jurisdiction.