Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1453 (ALL)

Rajpati v. State of U. P.

2010-05-03

SHRI KANT TRIPATHI

body2010
Hon'ble Shri Kant Tripathi, J.:- Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that a part cause of action relating to the incident took place within the limit of Fatehpur though the murder of the deceased was committed at Guregaon. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal AIR 1999 (SC) 3499 , in support of his submissions and contended that the deceased was taken by the accused persons from his house in the garb of a criminal conspiracy for being murdered at Guregaon. In a similar case Asit Bhattacharjee Vs. Hanuman prasad Ojha AIR 2007 SC 2052 the Apex Court held that the court or courts within whose territorial jurisdiction a part cause of action arises, has jurisdiction in the matter and trial and investigation may be held at any of such place or places and also it can not be contended that the court where major portion of the crime was committed, had only jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on Satvinder Kaur vs. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi, 1999-Crimes(SC)-3-157. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while rejecting the applicant's application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. observed that deceased was murdered in Gurgaon, therefore, the application was not maintainable in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur. According to the learned counsel for the applicant a part cause of action took place within the district Fatehpur when the deceased was taken from his house by the accused under the criminal conspiracy to Gurgaon. 4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur as well as the revisional court failed to give due consideration to the settled principles while rejecting the revisionist's application under section 156 (3) CrPC. 5. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The orders dated 18.9.2009 and 16.11.2009 (Annexure nos. 1 and 2) are quashed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur is directed to reconsider the question of jurisdiction, keeping in view the settled principles as well as the averments made in the complaint and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.