Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 171 (KAR)

Ahmed v. State of Karnataka

2016-02-18

ARAVIND KUMAR

body2016
[Para 6] ORDER : Aravind Kumar, J. Heard Sri. Shivakumar Kalloor, learned advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri. Sheshadri Jaishankar M., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No. 1 - State. Perused the records. 2. Petitioners are seeking for quashing of order dated 09.09.2015 passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC-I, Raichur in C.C. No. 273/2014 where under application tiled by accused Nos. 2 to 4 under Section 177 of Cr.P.C. came to be rejected by holding that said Court has got territorial jurisdiction to try the offence alleged against accused persons and also order dated 30.10.2015 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Raichur in Cri. Revision Petition No. 68/2015 where under order passed by learned Magistrate came to be affirmed and revision petition came to be dismissed. 3. Gist of the prosecution case is that 2nd respondent had lodged a complaint on 14.02.2014 before Yeragera Police Station alleging that she was married to accused No. 1-Khaleel and said marriage was performed as; per Muslim customs and at the time of marriage her parents had paid Rs. 70,000/- cash and 2 tolas of gold as dowry to accused No. 1. She further stated that she was being ill-treated and tortured physically and mentally by accused persons and when all accused persons attempted to take her life by pouring kerosene over her body and tried to set fire, she escaped from their clutches after jumping compound of her matrimonial house and came to Tungabhadra Railway Station and thereafter she came to her sister's house at Bangalore and went to her parent's house at Yeli Bichalli village and has been residing therein. She further alleged that her husband came to the village where she was residing and demands dowry from her and her parents and when they ref used, accused No. 1 threatened to take her life if such dowry is not provided. 4. On these grounds, complaint came to be lodged and investigation was taken up. Jurisdictional police have filed the charge-sheet at learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence alleged against accused/petitioners and issued summons to petitioners. They have appeared and have obtained bail. 4. On these grounds, complaint came to be lodged and investigation was taken up. Jurisdictional police have filed the charge-sheet at learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence alleged against accused/petitioners and issued summons to petitioners. They have appeared and have obtained bail. An application was filed by petitioners under Section 177 of Cr.P.C. contending that alleged incident has alien place at Madhavaram village, Andhra Pradesh State and investigation should have been done there and with a mala fide intention to harass the petitioners investigation has been got done through Yergera police, Karnataka and they have recorded the statement of some witnesses and conducted panchanama by visiting Madhavaram village which is beyond Yeragera Police Station limits and they have no territorial jurisdiction and since from the if date of marriage both accused No. 1 and complainant are residing at Madhavaram village and as such JMFC-1 Raichur has no territorial jurisdiction. Said application came to be resisted by prosecution by filing objections and after adjudication, Magistrate by order dated 09.09.2015 dismissed the application. 5. Being aggrieved by this order, revision petition was filed before II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur in Cri. Revision Petition No. 68/2015. Sessions Court after examining contentions raised by petitioners which are similar to one urged in the present petition, held that Section 177 of Cr.P.C. defines, every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed and Section 178(b) of Cr.P.C. clearly defines where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 6. In view of specific assertion by the complainant contending that ill-treatment and cruelty meted by accused persons at Madhavaram village and subsequently also at Yeragera where she was residing in her parental house and alleged threat posed by accused No. 1 to do away with the life of complainant, it would necessarily indicate that it is an offence continued to have been committed in the local area where the complainant is residing. It has been observed by learned District Judge and rightly so that offence which took place at Madhavaram village has continued at Yeragera village and as such Section 178 is clearly attracted and petitioners/accused persons can be proceeded against before JMFC Court, Raichur. It has been observed by learned District Judge and rightly so that offence which took place at Madhavaram village has continued at Yeragera village and as such Section 178 is clearly attracted and petitioners/accused persons can be proceeded against before JMFC Court, Raichur. Hence, in conclusion it held that JMFC-I Raichur is having jurisdiction to try the offence alleged against the petitioners. 7. In that view of the matter, contention of learned Advocate Sri. Shivakumar Kalloor that no part of offence has been committed within Yeragera Police Station limits cannot be accepted. Hence, criminal petition stands rejected. However, order of rejection would not come in the way of petitioners seeking for discharge before the jurisdictional Magistrate. In view of disposal of petition, I.A. 1/2015 does not survive for consideration and same is hereby rejected. Petition dismissed.