Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 619 (RAJ)

Mehar Chand, S/o. Brij Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2023-02-27

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

body2023
ORDER : 1. The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred against the order dated 04.05.2016 in Criminal Revision No.40/2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar whereby order dated 07.12.2012 & 09.01.2013 passed by learned ACJM No.2 Sri Ganganagar in criminal regular Case No.157/2012 emanating from FIR No.4/2012 registered at the Police Station Chunawarh, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 498-A and 323 of IPC was confirmed. 2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 06.01.2012 on the basis of the statement of respondent No.2-complainant, Police Station Chunawarh, District Sri Ganganagar registered an FIR wherein it was alleged that her marriage with petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 11.04.2005 and thereafter she was subjected to cruel behavior by her in-laws for demand of dowry and despite Panchayat the demands were continued. On 02.01.2012, she was beaten up by her husband and other relatives to extract ? 1 lac as dowry from parents of the complainant. On the basis of investigation, a charge sheet under Section 498-A and 323 IPC was filed against the present petitioners. 3. Thereafter, learned trial Court proceeded to frame charges against the present petitioners which were challenged before the learned Revisional Court but the revision petition was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the judgment in the case of Bhura Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., 2008 (3) RLW SC 1924 would submitted that the marriage of complainant and the petitioner No.1 was solemnized in Tehsil Abohar (Punjab) and at the time of incident, the complainant was residing in Tehsil Abohar, wherein she was subjected to so called cruelty as alleged in the her statement. He would further submit that the record clearly indicates that on the day when the alleged incident took place, she was brought to Civil Hospital, Sri Ganganagar on 06.01.2012, wherein Mr. Harvindra Singh, Head Constable of Police Station Sadar Abohar (Punjab) recorded the statement of complainant. After recording of this statement, an FIR was registered at PS Sadar, Abohar and the same was investigated. He further submitted that after this information to Punjab Police, the complainant after legal advice had also registered a case against the present petitioners in Police Station Chunawarh wherein a charge sheet under Sections 498-A and 323 of IPC was filed. After recording of this statement, an FIR was registered at PS Sadar, Abohar and the same was investigated. He further submitted that after this information to Punjab Police, the complainant after legal advice had also registered a case against the present petitioners in Police Station Chunawarh wherein a charge sheet under Sections 498-A and 323 of IPC was filed. He would also submitted that two criminal cases from one incident cannot be tried at different places as the same amounts to abuse to process of law. He would further submitted that the statement so recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. indicated that entire incidents were taken place in the jurisdiction of Abohar in the State of Punjab. Thus, the Courts at Sri Ganganagar are not having any jurisdiction to try the offence. He would submitted that Section 177 of Cr.P.C. prescribes for jurisdiction of criminal Courts for the purpose of trial and the trial Court and revisional Court are duty bound to consider the objections raised by the petitioners but both the Courts below have failed in their duties. He would further submitted that no incident of cruelty or alleged beating was taken place in the jurisdiction of Sri Ganganagar. Hence, the invocation of jurisdiction by the Courts below is wholly erroneous and the same is liable to be quashed. 5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. 6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Herein the contentions of petitioners are two fold firstly lack of jurisdiction and secondly two FIRs/ reports of same incident. These were raised before learned trial Court and so before the Revisional Court but relying upon the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orrisa vs. Devendra Nath 2005 CRLR (SC) 169 and Sunita Kumari Vs. State of Bihar 2011 CRLR (SC) 400, the Courts below refused to consider the defence of the petitioners at the stage of charge as the documents of defence cannot be looked into by the courts. 8. The basic contentions as raised by the petitioners’ indicate that there were serious challenge of the territorial jurisdiction of criminal Court at Sri Ganganagar is concerned and so also the subsequent FIR registered at PS Chunawarh. It is settled proposition of law that normally within whose jurisdiction the crime was allegedly committed, has the jurisdiction to try the offence. 8. The basic contentions as raised by the petitioners’ indicate that there were serious challenge of the territorial jurisdiction of criminal Court at Sri Ganganagar is concerned and so also the subsequent FIR registered at PS Chunawarh. It is settled proposition of law that normally within whose jurisdiction the crime was allegedly committed, has the jurisdiction to try the offence. Of course, this rule is subject to certain exceptions as provided under Cr.P.C.. It is pertinent to mention that Section 462 of Cr.P.C. provides that no finding, sentence or order of any criminal Court shall be set aside merely on the ground that the inquiry, trial or other proceedings in the course of which it was arrived at or passed took place in wrong session division, district, sub division or other local area, unless it appears that such error has in fact occasioned a failure of justice. 9. Section 177 Cr.P.C. lays down the general rule as to the jurisdiction of criminal inquiries and trial which provides that the area within which the offence is committed is relevant to determine the territorial jurisdiction of the Court but this provision has to be read subject to other provisions as provided under Sections 178 to 186 and 188 Cr.P.C. though Sections 219 to 223 Cr.P.C. also act as exception to Section 177 Cr.P.C.. 10. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Rupali Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2019) 5 SCC 384 has widened the scope of jurisdiction of filing of complaint under Section 498-A of IPC, on condition that a wife is allowed to file a complaint if she is residing after living or after being driven out of her matrimonial home. Herein the allegation made in complaint /statement and subsequent statement by the respondent No.2 had categorically disclosed that events taken place in the jurisdiction of Tehsil Abohar District Fajilka in the State of Punjab. Hence this judgment has no application to the present case, as the complainant was not residing in the house of her parents on the date of registration of FIR. 11. In the case of Bheru Lal (supra), it was found from the complaint itself and the statement of complainant that the alleged acts had taken place in the State of Punjab. 11. In the case of Bheru Lal (supra), it was found from the complaint itself and the statement of complainant that the alleged acts had taken place in the State of Punjab. Hence, the Court of Rajasthan was not having jurisdiction to deal with the matter and on the basis of factual aspects, it was held that no part of cause of action arose in Rajasthan, therefore, learned Magistrate at Rajasthan has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. 12. Herein foremost issue is that where the incident was taken place, no doubt about it that after being brought to Government/Civil Hospital, Sri Ganganagar complainant recorded her statement to the HC of Police Station Sadar, Abohar, wherein she alleged that on 02.01.2012, in her matrimonial home at Raipur PS Sadar, Abohar she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and other relatives. On the basis of this report, matter was registered at PS Sadar, Abohar though no FIR number was mentioned in any of the document, annexed with the petition. Thereafter another statement was recorded by ASI of PS Chunawarh (Rajasthan) and FIR No.4/2012 was registered, wherein except panchayat nowhere it was mentioned that the alleged incident had taken place in the jurisdiction of Chunawarh. The entire set of events, according to allegations were taken place in Raipur Tehsil Abohar, District Fajilka (Punjab) but P. S. Chunawarh after investigation had filed charge sheet against present petitioners. Learned trial Court while framing the charge had described the incident of 06.01.2012, as if was taken place in village Netewala, Chundawarh; thus, overlooking the “Parcha Bayan” and also the statements recorded by the police wherein the allegations were regarding incident taken place in Punjab. The trial Court without appreciating the issue of jurisdiction for trial and two reports as referred herein, of same incident, passed the aforesaid order and same was approved by the revisional Court. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts, if the incident as reported had taken place in Tehsil Abohar then jurisdiction of Sri Gangangar Courts is ousted. The “Parcha bayan” and the statement nowhere refers the incident of cruelty or demand of dowry in the jurisdiction or demand of dowry in the jurisdiction of Chunawarh. Unless the objection regarding jurisdiction is decided at the first instance, a trial cannot takes place in the jurisdiction of Rajasthan. The “Parcha bayan” and the statement nowhere refers the incident of cruelty or demand of dowry in the jurisdiction or demand of dowry in the jurisdiction of Chunawarh. Unless the objection regarding jurisdiction is decided at the first instance, a trial cannot takes place in the jurisdiction of Rajasthan. Herein there is serious dispute as regards to place of incident and parties cannot be forced to participate in a proceeding wherein the Courts are lacking in its jurisdiction, moreover it’s not a matter of bonafide submission to the jurisdiction of the Courts below. 14. Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances, it is clear that herein both the Courts below have committed serious error in overlooking the issue of jurisdiction and also the fact of two reports as discussed herein above. 15. In view of the facts and circumstances as brought on record, the order of framing the charge has serious flaws as it does not confirm with the statement of the complainant, therefore, the orders of both the courts below are liable to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded back for reconsideration in light of the objections as referred herein above. 16. Hence, this Misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The order dated 04.05.2016 of the revisional court, dated 07.12.2012 & 09.01.2013 of the trial Court are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court with a direction to first decide the objections regarding jurisdiction and effect of registration of two cases i.e. one in P.S. Abohar Sadar (Punjab), if any and P.S. Chunawarh (Rajasthan). If it is found that the Case is triable by the Courts at Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan), then the trial Court will proceed to hear on the charge and proceed for trial as per law. 17. The trial Court is directed to decide aforesaid objections within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.