Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 575 (MP)

Ram Prasad v. Urmila

2007-05-15

RAKESH SAKSENA

body2007
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. Applicants have tiled this revision against the order dated 2.3.2007, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori, in Criminal Revision No. 71/05, whereby the order dated 15.4.2005, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Dindori, in Criminal Case No. 192/04, was set aside and it was held that the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dindori, had jurisdiction to try the case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the offence under section 498-N34 IPC is not a continuing offence and cannot be tried at a place where no act of cruelty has been committed. He submits that in the present case the acts of cruelty are said to have taken place at Jabalpur and Pune, whereas the police has filed charge sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dindori, who has no jurisdiction to try the case. 4. On 29.11.2004 applicant moved an application contending that though according to written complaint made by the complainant Vrmila to Shahpura Police, place of occurrence and incidents had been shown to be Pune (Maharashtra) and Jabalpur, the investigation in the case was illegally conducted by Shahpura Police and the charge sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dindori. Counsel submits that no act of cruelty was committed in village Shahpura, therefore, Courts at Dindori have no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial. Learned counsel placed reliance on the case Manish Ratan and others v. State of M.P. and others [ 2007 (1) JLJ 198 = 2007 (1) SCC (Cri) 336] wherein it has been held that every offence is to be ordinarily enquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. The offence under section 498-A of IPC cannot be held to be a continuing one, only because the complainant is forced to leave her matrimonial home. 5. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that this revision deserves to be dismissed. 6. In para 15 and 16 of the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, it has been mentioned that in the statement u/s. 161 CrPC, complainant Urmila Sahu has categorically stated that her husband and husband's younger brother Manoj had made phone calls to her when she was at Shahpura and had demanded money. 6. In para 15 and 16 of the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, it has been mentioned that in the statement u/s. 161 CrPC, complainant Urmila Sahu has categorically stated that her husband and husband's younger brother Manoj had made phone calls to her when she was at Shahpura and had demanded money. She has also stated that when she was at Shahpura, her mother-in-law Tulsa Bai had come there and had demanded money and when the money was not paid, she had gone back. 7. Taking into consideration the above circumstances, In my opinion, it cannot be said that no act of cruelty was committed at Shahpura. Since the act of cruelty was committed at Shahpura, the Court of Magistrate, Dindori clearly had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and to try the same in view of the provision of section 178 (b) and (c) of CrPC. The facts and circumstances of the case of Manish Ratan (supra) are different. In that case the apex Court placed reliance on the case of Ramesh and others v. State of T.N. [ 2005 (3) SCC 507 ] wherein it was found that the offence alleged cannot be said to have been committed wholly or in part within the local jurisdiction of Magistrate Court at Tricy. Therefore, prima facia, none of the ingredients constituting the offence can be said to have occurred within the local jurisdiction of that Court. 8. In the present case, there are clear allegations that the accused persons had made demand of money on phone and also personally from the complainant, when she was at Shahpur. Since part of the offence was committed at Shahpura, learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly held that the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dindori, has jurisdiction to try the said case. This finds support from the ratio of the case of Sujata Mukharjee v. Prashant Kumar Mukharjee [ 1997 (5) SCC 30 ]. . 9. In view of the above circumstances, I find no error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Revision filed by the applicant is accordingly dismissed.