Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Lokendra Singh And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 28 May, 2013
Author: R.S. Chauhan
Bench: R.S. Chauhan
In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1474 of 2013. Lokendra Singh and Others VERSUS State of Rajasthan and another Date of Order ::: May, 28,, 2013 Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S. Chauhan Mr. Ashindra Gautam, Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor for the State *** Per Court :
The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 02.04.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Atru, District Baran, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. against the petitioners. They are also aggrieved by the pendency of the criminal proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baran.
The brief facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent, Smt. Kamna Singh, filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate against the petitioners, wherein she claimed that nine-years ago she was married to Lokendra Singh, the petitioner No.1. According to her, during wedlock, they had a son, who is about seven years old. Initially, the petitioners kept her well, but subsequently they started harassing her for a motor-cycle, for a Car and for a payment of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash. Furthermore, according to her, she was subjected physically and mental cruelty unleashed by the petitioners. Things came to set apart that in March, 2009 she was physically assaulted and thrown out of her matrimonial home. She returned to her parental home. Subsequently, her family members contacted the petitioners and tried to settle the dispute. The petitioners assured her family members that they will not commit any cruelty upon her. Believing their promise, she was sent back to her matrimonial home, but the petitioners do not change their ways, in fact once they had tried to hang her from the ceiling fan. On 14.07.2009, they tried to douse her with kerosene, when she raise hue and cry, she was saved by her neighbours. Therefore, On 15.07.2009, she contacted her father and pleaded that she be taken away, otherwise the petitioners are likely to kill her. She claims that on 16.07.2009 her parents, and her uncle took her away. The said complaint was sent to the Police for further investigation. On the basis of the complaint, the Police registered a formal F.I.R., namely F.I.R. No.223/2009 for offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 I.P.C. Subsequently, by order dated 02.04.2010, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. and issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioners. Hence, this petition before this Court.
Mr. Ashindra Gautam, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. would clearly reveals that after her marriage the complainant-respondent had gone to Sabalgarh, District Murena [M.P.]. According to her, all the acts of cruelties had taken place in Sabalgarh. Therefore, neither the Police Station, Atru nor the Courts of Judicial Magistrate, Atru have the territorial jurisdiction to investigate, and to try the case respectively. Hence, the cognizance order dated 02.04.2010 is patently illegal. Lastly, the continuation of the criminal proceedings before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate tantamounts to an abuse of the process of Court, and an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court must not only quash the cognizance order, but also quash the criminal proceedings pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baran. The learned counsel has also relied on the following decisions : in the cases of Gulshan Kapoor & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [2011 (4) RLW 3520 (Raj.) 3520, Sunita Kumari Kashyap Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. A.I.r. 2011 S.C. 1674, Satvinder Kaur Vs. State [Govt. of NCT of Delhi] and Another (1999) 8 SCC 728, State of M.P. Vs. Suresh Kaushal and Another (2003) 11 SCC 126 and in the case of Sujata Mukherjee (Smt) Vs.Prashant Kumar Mukherjee, (1997) 5 SCC 30.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order.
Section 181 Cr.P.C. states that the trial of an offence shall take at the place where the offence has occurred. However, there are certain exceptions to this general rule, the exceptions have been given in Cr.P.C. itself. According to Section 179 Cr.P.C., the Courts, where the act is done or consequences of the offences have occurred, would also have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case. Moreover, according to Section 181 Cr.P.C., in case of offence under Section 406 I.P.C. or criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed, the Court, where the entrustment was made, also have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case. In the present case, admittedly, the stridhan belonging to the complainant-respondent was entrusted at Village, Chhatrapura, Police Station, Atru.
In catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held while dealing with the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C,., that where consequences of the act have occurred, the Courts of that place would have the territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, the submissions with regard to the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Police, and of the Court at Atru is misplaced.
A bare perusal of the F.I.R., clearly reveals prima-facie the existence of the offences alleged in the F.I.R., and at the time of taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate is only concerned with the occurrence of the offences. The learned Magistrate was certainly justified in taking cognizance of the aforementioned offences. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that the learned Magistrate has passed his order in a mechanical manner.
Lastly, a bare perusal of the cognizance order dated 02.04.2010 also clearly reveals that the learned Magistrate has applied his mind judiciously and validly, this Court does not find any illegality in the said order.
For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in this petition: it is, hereby, dismissed.
Upon dismissal of the main petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive; the same is also dismissed.
[R.S. Chauhan] J.
ashok/ Certificate - All corrections have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Ashok Kumar Songara/P.A.cum J.W