Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 267 (RAJ)

Vipin Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2015-01-29

M.N.BHANDARI

body2015
JUDGMENT : M.N. Bhandari, J. By this petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 13.09.2005, whereby cognizance of the offence under Sections 498A & 406 has been taken against the petitioner followed by dismissal of revision petition vide order dated 22.05.2006. 2. Learned counsel submits that without having territorial jurisdiction, not only the complaint was registered but cognizance of the offence has been taken against the petitioner. The occurrence took place at Jaipur, thus the court at Kota had no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. The complaint does not disclose any occurrence in the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Kota but without considering the aforesaid, impugned orders have been passed rather facts of the case have not been considered while deciding the issue of territorial jurisdiction. Hence, both the impugned orders be quashed and set aside. A reference of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr., reported in 2004 CRI.L.J. 4180 has been given apart from the judgment of this court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2006 (2) WLC (Raj.) 398 wherein in the similar circumstance, the impugned orders were quashed finding it to be without jurisdiction. 3. Learned counsel for complainant opposed the petition. He submits that the FIR discloses occurrence at Kota and otherwise offence under Section 406 IPC was made out as "stridhan" was not returned. The aforesaid aspect has been considered by the revisional court while passing the impugned order. The issue of territorial jurisdiction of the court was considered in the light of the facts available on record, thus interference in the impugned order may not be made. 4. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record. 5. The FIR was registered on a complaint has been reproduced in the petition. It is to show that no occurrence took place at Kota. To appreciate the issue of jurisdiction, it would be gainful to refer Section 179 Cr.P.C. It is quoted hereunder for ready reference: "179. 5. The FIR was registered on a complaint has been reproduced in the petition. It is to show that no occurrence took place at Kota. To appreciate the issue of jurisdiction, it would be gainful to refer Section 179 Cr.P.C. It is quoted hereunder for ready reference: "179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues - When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued." 6. A court would be having jurisdiction where occurrence took place apart from where consequence ensues. The provision thus gives jurisdiction to the courts where not only occurrence took place but also to the court where consequence ensued. The aforesaid was considered by the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Suresh Kaushal & Anr., reported in (2003 ) 11 SCC 126. The relevant Para 6 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference: "6. The above section contemplates two courts having jurisdiction and the trial is permitted to take place in any one of those two courts. One is the court within whose local jurisdiction the act has been done and the other is the court within whose local jurisdiction the consequence has ensued. When the allegation is that the miscarriage took place at Jabalpur it cannot be contended that the court at Jabalpur could not have acquired jurisdiction as the acts alleged against the accused took place at Indore." 7. The perusal of the para quoted reveals that as per Section 179 Cr.P.C., it is not only the court where occurrence took place would have jurisdiction but where consequence ensued. In the case of Y. Abraham Ajith (supra), consideration was made in reference to "cause of action". Therein, earlier judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Suresh Kaushal (supra) was not referred by the counsel appeared therein. 8. If the facts of this case are looked into, allegations exist to deny return of "stridhan", rather petitioner was asked to pursue for it in the court at Kota, for it. Looking to the facts aforesaid, I find part of cause of action in the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Kota. 8. If the facts of this case are looked into, allegations exist to deny return of "stridhan", rather petitioner was asked to pursue for it in the court at Kota, for it. Looking to the facts aforesaid, I find part of cause of action in the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Kota. In the light of judgment in the case of State of M.P. v. Suresh Kaushal (supra), I am of the opinion that offence would lie to the court where victim is settled and "stridhan" is not returned. In view of above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders. 9. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The record be sent back to the court below immediately. The court below may now expedite trial of the case.