Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 738 (ALL)

Ram Sahai Singh v. State of U. P.

2022-05-10

SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV

body2022
JUDGMENT : SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and Mr. Manish Tandon, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 2. The instant revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 16.03.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Chitrakoot in Special Session Trial No. 36 of 2018 (State of U.P. vs. Ram Sahai Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 225 of 2018, under Sections 366, 328, 376 (2) (n), 294, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Section 66E of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, Police Station Karvi, District Chitrakoot whereby the application under section 177 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 3. The prosecution version as adumbrated in the first information report lodged by the prosecutrix Pratibha Singh on 05.04.2018 regarding an alleged incident of rape by the revisionist on her on 13.08.2013 at about 01.00 P.M. In the F.I.R. it is alleged that the victim came in touch with the revisionist in the year 2012 and the revisionist had helped her in getting a laptop in government scheme in the year 2012 and since then the revisionist has been stalking her and used to pass obscene remarks. It is further alleged that on 13.08.2013 at about 01.00 P.M. when she was waiting for Auto outside the college, the revisionist came and offered her for lift in his Bolero Car and made her sit by his side. The revisionist then offered her cold drink and after consuming it, she became unconscious and when she became out of conscious she found herself in a Jungle where the revisionist raped her. It is further alleged that the revisionist also prepared video clippings and clicked some photographs and also extended threats of making it viral and continuously kept on sexually exploiting her. 4. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet against the revisionist on 31.05.2018 and the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance committed the case as Sessions Trial No. 36 of 2018 vide order dated 25.06.2018. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist has preferred an application under Section 177 Cr.P.C. before the court of learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Karvi, Chitrakoot on 14.03.2022, who vide order dated 14.03.2022 rejected the application filed by the revisionist, hence, this revision. 5. Mr. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist has preferred an application under Section 177 Cr.P.C. before the court of learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Karvi, Chitrakoot on 14.03.2022, who vide order dated 14.03.2022 rejected the application filed by the revisionist, hence, this revision. 5. Mr. Rajiv Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned FIR has been lodged against the revisionist as a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the revisionist against the father of the prosecutrix at Police Station Kotwali Karvi Nagar, District Chitrakoot in Case Crime No. 41 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 406 IPC. He has further submitted that the as per FIR the incident alleged to have taken place at Gramoday University, Chitrakoot, Satna (M.P.) while the FIR has been lodged at Police Station Karvi, Chitrakoot (U.P.). He has further submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted against the revisionist is also without jurisdiction. The impugned order passed by the trial court is illegal, erroneous and arbitrary and also against the provisions of law, hence, the same is liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon Section 179 of the Act as well as judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and Others vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another, 2004 (6) Supreme 207 . 6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment, Mr. Manish Tandon, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has assigned specific role of committing rape at various places by the revisionist for the past several years, which exists within the jurisdiction of Uttar Pradesh, thus, in view of Section 178 Cr.P.C. the trial is well maintainable in the eyes of law. The revisionist is a man of criminal propensities involved in several cases. During trial, the prosecutrix was also attacked by the revisionist for which an FIR has also been lodged against the revisionist. He has further submitted that trial court has rightly rejected the application on legal grounds holding that the application moved under Chapter XIII, which provides ordinary place of inquiry and trial and reliance has been placed upon Section 178 Cr.P.C. which deals with place of inquiry or trial. He has further submitted that trial court has rightly rejected the application on legal grounds holding that the application moved under Chapter XIII, which provides ordinary place of inquiry and trial and reliance has been placed upon Section 178 Cr.P.C. which deals with place of inquiry or trial. The trial court has clearly held that though the cause of action shown in the FIR are said to have happened at different places and the investigation is conducted within the jurisdiction of commission of crime, which is said to be committed at Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh. He has further submitted that Section 178 Cr.P.C. clearly deals with the situation and held that where several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a court having its jurisdiction, therefore, the trial court has rightly and legally rejected the application under Section 177 Cr.P.C. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2020 Law Suit (All) 459. 7. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “Code”) deals with jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials. Sections 177 to 179 Cr.P.C. are quoted as under: “177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial - Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. 178. Place of inquiry or trial - (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 179. 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.” 9. From the above provisions, it is clear that the normal rule is that the offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. However, when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed or where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another or where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more than one local area and takes place in different local areas as per Section 178 Cr.P.C. the Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas is competent to inquire into and try the offence. Section 179 Cr.P.C. makes it clear that if anything happened as a consequence of the offence, the same may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. 10. In the light of the above, this Court has critically examined the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as the statement of victim No. 2 recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and found that the offence in this case is said to have been committed in more local areas and one of the local areas being Chitrakoot, the court below at Chitrakoot has jurisdiction to proceed with the criminal case instituted therein. 11. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the order impugned passed by the court below. Hence, there is no force in this criminal revision and the same is hereby dismissed. 12. No order as to costs.