Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1269 (RAJ)

Kaushalya v. State of Rajasthan

2006-04-20

G.S.SARRAF

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. - The two petitions under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code are directed against two orders dated 17.9.2005 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai in Criminal Case No. 426/2005. (FIR No. 48/2005, Police Station Niwai). 2. The facts in brief are that one Pinki Kanwar filed a complaint under Sections 120-B, 313, 323, 341, 354,406,420,498-A and 509, Indian Penal Code against the four petitioners in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai, which was sent to Niwai Police Station for investigation under Section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code The police conducted the investigation and filed a charge sheet under Sections 498-A, 406, 341, 323, 313 and 354, Indian Penal Code against the petitioners Vikram Singh and Bhairo Singh only. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai not only took cognizance of the above offences against the petitioners Vikram Singh and Bhairo Singh but also took cognizance of the offences under Sections 498-A, 313 and 120- B, Indian Penal Code against the petitioner Kaushalya and of the offence under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code against the petitioner Reena. The four petitioners have filed these two petitions to challenge the aforesaid two cognizance orders. 3. According to the complaint filed by Pinki Kanwar in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai, the marriage between her and the petitioner Vikram Singh took place at Niwai on 4.5.2003 and thereafter they resided in the nuptial home situated at Gangapur, District Bhilwara where she was abused, beaten and tortured by the petitioners and the petitioners refused to return her 'Stridhan'. The miscarriage is also alleged to have taken place at Gangapur, 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has challenged the cognizance orders on the ground that all the acts of cruelty, criminal breach of trust and miscarriage etc. were committed at Gangapur, District Bhilwara, therefore, title Court at Niwai did not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case. He has relied on 2004 (6) CRJ 401. He has also pointed out that the petitioner Reena is a minor.Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that the offences are continuing and, therefore, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai has jurisdiction to deal with the matter. 5. Sections 177 to 186 of the Criminal Procedure Code deal with place of inquiry and trial. He has also pointed out that the petitioner Reena is a minor.Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that the offences are continuing and, therefore, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai has jurisdiction to deal with the matter. 5. Sections 177 to 186 of the Criminal Procedure Code deal with place of inquiry and trial. Section 177, Criminal Procedure Code says that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 178. Criminal Procedure Code reads as under : "Section 178. Place of inquiry or trial. (a) when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed; or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another; or (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one; or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas; it may be enquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas." 6. The crucial question is whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Niwai Court? In other words whether any offence or part of it was committed at Niwai? 7. A careful perusal of the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai reveals that the complainant Pinki Kanwar was abused, beaten and tortured at Gangapur and it is there the petitioners refused to hand over the 'Stridhan' to her. The miscarriage was also caused at Gangapur. 8. Considering the above facts the inevitable conclusion is that no part of the cause of action arose at Niwai and, therefore, the Niwai Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with the matter and as such the proper course is to transfer the case in the Court having jurisdiction as held by Hon ble Apex Court in (2003) 11 SCC 126. 9. If Reena is a minor as contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners then in that case she is free to approach the Trial Court for appropriate relief. 10. 9. If Reena is a minor as contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners then in that case she is free to approach the Trial Court for appropriate relief. 10. Consequently the Criminal Case No. 426/2005 (FIR No. 48/2005, Police Station, Niwai) pending in the Court of Niwai is transferred to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara for disposal in accordance with law.The two petitions stand disposed of as above. Order accordingly. *******