Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 491 (UTT)

Ramesh Ajmani v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-08-19

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks following reliefs, among others: (i) pass necessary orders and directions thereby calling for the records of compliant case no. 31 of 2013, titled as Smt. Rukmani Devi vs Ramesh Ajmani, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand. (ii) pass necessary orders and directions thereby quashing / setting aside and cancelling the complaint case no. 31 of 2013, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom. (iii) pass necessary orders and directions thereby quashing, cancelling and setting aside the order on charge dated 18.06.2016, passed by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal in complaint case no. 31 of 2013, whereby the applicant has been charged with the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 IPC. 2. A criminal complaint case was filed by the complainant (respondent no. 2 herein) against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 63 of Copy Rights Act read with Section 406 IPC in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal on 13.09.2011. Applicant was summoned to face the trial for the selfsame offence vide order dated 31.01.2014. The applicant appeared before the court below and got himself bailed out. Thereafter, after recording the evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C., charge was framed against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC vide order dated 18.06.2016. 3. In present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., learned counsel for the applicant raises a new point, which was not raised before the trial court, viz., the court at Pauri Garhwal has no jurisdiction to try the criminal compliant case. Learned Dy. Advocate General for the State submitted that the applicant ought to have raised the ground of non-territoriality before the trial court and only then he ought to have assailed the order passed against him in a competent court having jurisdiction. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant admitted that no such plea under Chapter XIII of Cr.P.C. was raised before the trial court. 5. It may be pointed out that Chapter XIII Cr.P.C. deals with jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials. Section 177 Cr.P.C. deals with ordinary place of inquiry and trial. Section 178 Cr.P.C. deals with place of inquiry or trial. 5. It may be pointed out that Chapter XIII Cr.P.C. deals with jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials. Section 177 Cr.P.C. deals with ordinary place of inquiry and trial. Section 178 Cr.P.C. deals with place of inquiry or trial. Likewise, Section 179 to Section 189 Cr.P.C. deal with – offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues; place of trial where act is an offence by reason of relation to other offence; place of trial in case of certain offences; offences committed by letters, etc.; offence committed on journey or voyage; place of trial for offences triable together, power to order cases to be tried in different sessions divisions; High Court to decide, in case of doubt, district where inquiry or trial shall take place; power to issue summons or warrant for offence committed beyond local jurisdiction; offence committed outside India and; receipt of evidence relating to offences committed outside India. 6. After arguing the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at some length, learned counsel for the applicant seeks to withdraw the same with liberty to place all his arguments before the trial court for seeking his discharge at an appropriate stage, in accordance with law. 7. Application under Section C-482 Cr.P.C. is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn with liberty, as above.