JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 8.8.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sujangarh in Sessions Case No. 22/2007 framing charges against the accused petitioners as below:- Smt. Teeju @ Saroj Devi : U/s.406, 498-A, 325 and 307 I.P.C. Shashikant : under section 498-A and 323 I.P.C. Shyamlal : 498-A I.P.C. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent no. 2 Savitri filed a written F.I.R. at the P.S. Sandwa on 24.7.2007 alleging interalia that she was married to the petitioner Shashikant on 5.5.1998 at Sujangarh. She alleged that during the course of her married life and between the years 1999 and 2006, she was continuously harassed by the accused petitioners on account of demand of dowry. She further alleged that on 2.1.1999, when she was reading something while sitting on the roof, at that time her mother in- law attacked her and pushed her down from the roof. She fell down and became unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she was struggling because of her injuries. At that time the accused persons suspecting some serious action against themselves pleaded her not to report the matter to anybody. She was taken to hospital but due to pleadings of the accused to save them for repercussion she did not reveal these facts to anybody. She was discharged from the hospital prematurely due to her father-in-law's influence. She was not provided proper treatment for her injuries on which she sent a letter to her father stating therein all the facts. Upon being informed, her father came to take her back. While leaving the marital home she requested her mother in law for being returned back her ornaments on which her mother in law told her ornaments would be stolen in transit and on this pretext did not return the same to her. Thereafter when her parents requested that she should be taken back to the marital home the accused persons started making illegitimate demand of dowry etc. When her back problems pursuant to her being pushed down by her mother-in-law persisted, her parents took her to a doctor and she was diagnosed with a fracture of her back bone. She gave birth to a female child in her father's house. When her back problems pursuant to her being pushed down by her mother-in-law persisted, her parents took her to a doctor and she was diagnosed with a fracture of her back bone. She gave birth to a female child in her father's house. Her father in law called on 7.5.2000 and demanded money from her father on the pretext that arrangement for construction of a house had to be made as Shashikant (husband) was coming back to the village. Some gold ornaments were also demanded. Thereafter her husband also called and persisted with the demand. She filed a complaint in the Women Cell at Delhi, on which the accused were summoned. They compromised the matter and took her back to Sujangarh on 12.8.2000. Thereafter also, her husband used to beat her in relation to the demand of dowry. She was once pushed down so hard that her back pain recurred. She was admitted in the Army Hospital where the doctors opined that she had to be operated for the fracture in her backbone but the in-laws refused to have treated her medically. She continuously kept on tolerating atrocities of her in-laws but ultimately the sufferings went beyond the limits of her tolerance on which she was forced to file the complaint. On the basis of the complaint, the police registered an F.I.R. for the offences under Sections 406, 498A, 323, 307, 325 and 120-B I.P.C. and a charge-sheet was filed. The accused were committed to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Sujangarh who has framed charges against the accused as mentioned above. The accused petitioners have now approached this Court by way of the instant revision seeking quashing of the charges. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order framing charges on two grounds. The first ground being that the Court at Sujangarh has no jurisdiction to try the case. The second ground is that even if the allegations of the prosecution are accepted to be true at the highest, then also the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. which has been framed against the accused is absolutely illegal and unjustified. Learned counsel submits that as none of the offences allegedly committed upon the complainant have been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Sujangarh, therefore, the Court at Sujangarh does not have any jurisdiction to try the case. Learned counsel submits that as none of the offences allegedly committed upon the complainant have been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Sujangarh, therefore, the Court at Sujangarh does not have any jurisdiction to try the case. He further submits that the charge framed against the accused for the offences under Section 307 I.P.C. is illegal. He contends that the act for which the accused Teeju has been charged for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. was committed way back in the year 1999 but the complainant did not choose to file any complaint in relation to the said offence for a long period of six years, and therefore, he contends that the charges framed against the accused deserve to be quashed. 4. Per contra Mr. Shambhoo Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 complainant submitted that not only the complainant was harassed by the accused on account of demand of dowry but the accused Teeju threw the complainant down from the roof top resulting into her receiving a serious injury on her back with her back bone being fractured. He further contends that there is a specific allegation of the complainant that she was harassed for bringing less dowry continuously for a period of six years since her marriage, therefore, the delay in filing the F.I.R. cannot be of any consequence. He further submits that the offence under Section 406 I.P.C. was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Sujangarh because the dowry articles of the complainant were entrusted to the accused at Sujangarh and were thereafter misappropriated. Therefore, the Court at Sujangarh is seized of the jurisdiction to try the case. He further contends that there is a specific allegation of the complainant that the accused Smt. Teeju deliberately pushed her down from the roof top whereby she received a life endangering injury involving the fracture of her vertebrae. Learned counsel submits that the complainant immediately filed a complaint in relation to the said act of the accused at the Women Police Station, New Delhi but thereafter the accused pleaded to be let off whereupon the complaint was not pursued. Learned counsel submits that the complainant immediately filed a complaint in relation to the said act of the accused at the Women Police Station, New Delhi but thereafter the accused pleaded to be let off whereupon the complaint was not pursued. Learned counsel submits that even thereafter, the illegal demands of the accused and the harassment of the complainant on account of bringing less dowry persisted whereupon the complainant was forced to leave the matrimonial home and ultimately she was led to file the F.I.R. which has thoroughly been investigated and has been found to be genuine. He pointed out the medical records seized during the course of investigation as per which on the date corresponding to the complainant being thrown from roof top she has been diagnosed with a fracture of her vertebrae. Learned counsel submits that the learned trial court has meticulously examined the evidence and has not framed the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. the accused persons apart from Smt. Teeju which clearly reflects the conscious application of mind by the learned trial court to the facts of the case. He, therefore, prays that the revision petition deserves to be rejected. 5. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the record. 6. From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that though the complaint filed by the complainant is belated but the story of her having been thrown out from the roof top and as a result thereof receiving a grievous injury on her spinal cord is corroborated by the medical evidence. The complainant immediately after receiving the injury filed a complaint at the Women Police Station New Delhi but thereafter the accused pleaded for leniency whereupon the complainant did not pursue her complaint. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court was well within its jurisdiction in directing framing of the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. against the accused Teeju. 7. So far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, it is the specific allegation of the complainant that her dowry articles were entrusted to the accused at Sujangarh and thereafter the mother-in-law refused to return them back on demand being made for the same. Conscious of this fact, the learned trial court has not framed charge under Section 406 I.P.C. against the complainant's husband and her father in law. Conscious of this fact, the learned trial court has not framed charge under Section 406 I.P.C. against the complainant's husband and her father in law. Therefore, it is apparent that the learned trial court has consciously and fairly applied its mind and has passed a well reasoned order framing charges for distinct offences against the three accused. The order framing charge is based on just and proper appreciation of the material available on record, therefore, it cannot be said that the order framing charge suffers from any illegality or is groundless. 8. Resultantly, this Court is of the opinion that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the trial court in framing charges against the accused as stated above by the impugned order.Accordingly, the revision petition being bereft of merit is thus dismissed. Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith. Looking to the fact that the charge was framed way back in the year 2008, the learned trial court shall proceed expeditiously.Revision dismissed. *******