Delhi District Court
Navith Choudhary vs State Of Delhi Through P.P on 17 March, 2017
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE03 (WEST) DELHI
Crl. (R) No. 18/1/17
U.I.D. NO. 81/2017
P.S. EOW
Navith Choudhary,
S/o Sh. Satypal Singh,
Permanent R/o Village Katrathal District Sikar (Rajasthan)
Presently residing at 89, Vinayak ViharD, Kalwar Road,
Jaipur (Rajasthan).
......... Revisionist
Versus
State of Delhi through P.P.
....... Respondent
O R D E R 17.03.2017
1. The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.PC has been filed against the order dated 03.12.2016 passed by the court of Ms. Ruchika Singla, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court03), West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
2. The FIR bearing no. 66/2015 dated 29.05.2015, under Section Cr. R. No. 81/17 Navith Chaudhary Vs. State Page 1 of 10 pages 2 354D/469/506IPC and 67/67A IT Act was registered in PS Economic Offences Wing. The FIR was registered on the statement of the complainant. The complainant in her written complaint has alleged misuse of her personal photograph and harassment. The complainant has alleged that she had received a message on her Facebook account on 27.04.2015 containing her nude image which has been photoshoped with her face. That she viewed that message on 29.04.2015. It is further alleged that she got another message on her Whats App number on 22.05.2015 and 24.05.2015 again with same dirty image and vulgar messages. That the sender threatened her that if she will not do as said, he will make her photograph go viral.
3. On the written complaint of the complainant, the FIR was registered and matter was investigated. After preliminary enquiry, the CAF and CDR of mobile phone from which dirty image and vulgar messages were sent to the complainant, on Whats App, have Cr. R. No. 81/17 Navith Chaudhary Vs. State Page 2 of 10 pages 3 been obtained. A letter was sent through email for obtaining the log details of Facebook profile. The IPs address used for sending the Facebook message were found to be of BSNL issued in the name of the accused. The Investigating Officer has analysed the CDRs of Mobile No. 9785884437 and 8387095967 and reached to the conclusion that accused was using the number 9785884437, from which Whats App messages were sent to the complainant and on Internet search, the IMEIs were found to be belonged to mobile Gionee.
4. The accused was arrested and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed against him. The accused before the Ld. Trial court had filed an application submitting that no offence has been committed within the jurisdiction of Delhi court. That the offence, if any, had been committed at Rajasthan. The accused prayed to the Ld. Trial court not to take cognizance. The Ld. Trial court vide order dated 03.12.2016, held that the courts at Delhi Cr. R. No. 81/17 Navith Chaudhary Vs. State Page 3 of 10 pages 4 have the jurisdiction to entertain the present case. The Ld.Trial court further held that there is nothing on record that the accused has been tried for the same offence at Jaipur.
5. The accused being aggrieved by the said order dated 03.12.2016 passed by the Ld. Trial court has filed the present revision petition. It is stated that the place of occurrence, if any, is situated at Jaipur (Rajasthan) and no court situated in Delhi including CMM (West) or Mahila Court or any court situated in Delhi has jurisdiction to inquire into or try the alleged offence.
6. That the courts are Delhi has no jurisdiction over the present matter. That the accused and the complainant are permanent resident of Rajasthan and the investigation which was done in Delhi, not only caused financial and other hardships but was in fact an abuse of the legal process.
7. That the accused was arrested from Jaipur and the maternal uncle of the complainant was made a witness of his arrest. That the Cr. R. No. 81/17 Navith Chaudhary Vs. State Page 4 of 10 pages 5 accused was not taken to Magistrate in Jaipur and was brought to Delhi a different state without any judicial authority.
8. That the order passed by ld. Trial court is incorrect, illegal and improper and deserves to be quashed.
9. The notice of the revision petition was issued to the state which has been accepted by the Ld. APP for the state. It is submitted by the Ld. APP for the state that the ground of revision mentioned by the accused is not sustainable in the eyes of law. That courts are Delhi are having territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present case as per the provisions of Cr.PC. That the alleged offence has taken place within the jurisdiction of courts at Delhi, therefore courts are Delhi, are having territorial jurisdiction over the present matter. It is submitted that in the present facts and circumstances, revision petition may kindly be dismissed.
10.I have carefully perused the material on record and gone through the submissions of Ld. APP for the state and Ld. Counsel for the Cr. R. No. 81/17 Navith Chaudhary Vs. State Page 5 of 10 pages 6 revisionist/accused.
11. The present revision petition is based upon the contention that courts at Delhi are having no jurisdiction to try the present criminal case against the accused.
12.The relevant provision of Cr.PC are required to be perused to decide the contention raised by the revisionist/accused.
13.Chapter XIII Section 177 to 189 of Cr.PC relates to the jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trial: The provisions section 177 Cr.PC lays down that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
14.The complaint was lodged by the complainant from her Delhi address situated within the jurisdiction of West District, Delhi. The complainant in her complaint has alleged to receive the message on her Whats App number on 22.05.2015 and 24.05.2015. The complainant has alleged to have viewed the Facebook message on Cr. R. No. 81/17 Navith Chaudhary Vs. State Page 6 of 10 pages 7 29.04.2015. The perusal of the complaint itself gives presumption that the complainant has viewed the Facebook message and WhatsApp message on her Delhi address. The alleged offence against the accused has been committed at Delhi when the said nude photograph/ lewd message were viewed by the complainant. The alleged offence had taken place only when the complainant had viewed the message allegedly sent by the accused.
15. The contention of the counsel for accused is not tenable in the eyes of law, that Delhi courts are having no jurisdiction as complainant and accused are permanent resident of Rajasthan. In a criminal trial, the place of residence is immaterial. Courts has to see at which place the offence has occurred. The courts in whose jurisdiction the offence is committed shall have jurisdiction to try the offence.
16. In the present case, the offence has been committed when the nude photographs/lewd message were viewed by the complainant Cr. R. No. 81/17 Navith Chaudhary Vs. State Page 7 of 10 pages 8 at Delhi.
17. The sending of the message from Rajasthan by the accused, even if, admitted does not exclude the jurisdiction of Delhi courts. The contention raised by the revisionist in the present revision petition are unfounded and without any basis. By no stretch of arguments, the jurisdiction of Delhi courts could be taken away.
18. Section 177 of Cr. PC simply mentions ordinary place of inquiry and trial: The chapter XIII of Cr.PC enlarge the ambit of the sites in which trial of offence may be held as to minimize as much as possible any confusion for territorial jurisdiction.
19. The other provisions of chapter XIII are not required to be invoked when the cases clearly fails within the ambit of section 177 of Cr.PC. There must be some other circumstances than ordinary for application of the remaining provision of Chapter XIII of Cr.PC.
20. In the present case, the place of the commission of the offence is Cr. R. No. 81/17 Navith Chaudhary Vs. State Page 8 of 10 pages 9 crystal clear. The place of offence as per the allegation of prosecution is within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi courts. The allegations of the complainant invoke the ordinary territorial jurisdiction conferred of Cr.PC. It is not out of place to mention that none of the section mentioned in Chapter XIII i.e. section 178 to 189 takes away the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi courts. None of the section of this chapter bars the jurisdiction of Delhi courts.
21. The Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has also fails to satisfy the court by virtue of which provision the jurisdiction courts of Delhi are ousted.
22. In the present facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality in the finding recorded by the Ld. Trial court and same does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the revision petition filed by the revisionist against order dated 03.12.2016 is dismissed.
23.The revision file be consigned to record room after completing all Cr. R. No. 81/17 Navith Chaudhary Vs. State Page 9 of 10 pages 10 necessary formalities.
24. The copy of this order alongwith Trial court record be sent back. Announced in Open Court (Devender Kumar Jangala) on 17th March, 2017 Additional Sessions Judge03, West, Delhi Cr. R. No. 81/17 Navith Chaudhary Vs. State Page 10 of 10 pages