Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 37 (MP)

Satish Kumar Sahu v. State of M. P.

2006-01-04

S.C.VYAS

body2006
ORDER 1. Heard finally at the motion hearing stage with the consent of both parties. As directed on last date of hearing Mr. A Kakani submitted the case diary of the case of Crime No. 88/2005 of Mahila Thana, Indore, registered under sections 498A, 506, 406 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Shri Mukhati Advocate submits that as per allegations made in the FIR no part of the offence was committed at Indore and, therefore, the Court at Indore has no jurisdiction to try the case. He has further submitted that just to create the jurisdiction in Indore Court a line has been added to the statements of the complainants and other witnesses recorded under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to the effect that accused persons came to Indore and harassed and threatened the complainant here also. 3. Shri Mukhati relied upon the reported case of Supreme Court Abraham Ajith and others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai [ AIR 2004 SC 4286 ]. 4. Shri Kakani submitted that the complainant was threatened and harassed at Indore and, therefore, a part of the offence was committed at Vijay Nagar, Indore. So as per the provision of section 178 (C) of the Code of Criminal Procedure it being a continuing offence and the Court at Indore has jurisdiction to try the offence. 5. I have perused the case diary containing FIR as well as statement of the witnesses recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure though there is no mention in the FIR that accused persons came to Indore to threaten the complainant but there is such mention in the statement recorded under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the complainant. In her last line she stated that accused persons came to Vijay Nagar, Indore and threatened her. Similar statements were given by other witnesses also. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abraham Anjith (supra) has held in paragraph No. 14 that: 'It is settled law that cause of action consists of bundle of facts, which give cause to enforce the legal inquiry for redress in a Court of law. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the allegedly affected party a right to claim relief against the opponent. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the allegedly affected party a right to claim relief against the opponent. It must include some act done by the latter since in the absence of such an act no cause of action would possibly accrue or would arise." 6. Hon 'ble apex Court also considered sections 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and opined that when there is no whisper of an act which has been committed under any Act constituting the offence at place then the logic of continuation of offence cannot be applied. But in the present case there are specific allegations made by the witness to the effect that the complainant was actually threatened at Vijay Nagar, Indore also which means cruelty and harassment was committed at Indore, also. I am afraid, this is not a stage to appreciate the evidence or to give any finding on this aspect of the matter as to whether any part of the Act constituting the offence has been committed at Indore or not. This argument can be considered by the trial Court after recording of the evidence. 7. The petition filed by the petitioner under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court fails and is dismissed summarily.