Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. In Abraham Ajith's case (supra) an identical question was considered by the Apex Court. That was a case where the complaint alleging commission of offences under section 498A and 406 IPC and Section 41 of Dowry Prohibition Act, was sought to be quashed by invoking the powers under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure which was rejected by the High Court and challenged before the Apex Court. As in this case complaint filed before the Magistrate was forwarded for investigation under section 156(3) of Code of Criminal procedure. After investigation final report alleging commission of offences under Section 498A and 406 IPC was submitted before Magistrate Saidapet Chennai. On the allegations in the complaint it was found that the cause of action which consist of bundle of facts per se took place at Nagarcoil and not within the jurisdiction of Chennai Court and therefore the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The proceedings was therefore quashed as follows:-

"10. The next controversy arising in the case is about the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court at Tiruchirapalli to try the cases.
As already noted, the High Court was of the view that the questions raised in the petition cannot be decided before trial. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the issue relating to the place of trial can be decided even at this stage without going beyond the averments in the complaint filed by the respondents and the High Court should have, Crl.M.C.1468/09 & Crl.R.P.2068/09 20 therefore, decided this points of jurisdiction, when it is raised before the trial has commenced. Our attention has been drawn to a recent decision of this Court in Y.Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police. In that case,the Madras High Court refused to interfere under section 482 Cr.PC when the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned to take cognizance of the offence was raised. This Court did not endorse the approach of the High Court for not recording the finding on the question of jurisdiction. On reading the allegations in the complaint, the Court came to the conclusion that no part of the cause of action arose in Chennai and therefore the Metropolitan Magistrate at Chennai could not have taken cognizance and issued Crl.M.C.1468/09 & Crl.R.P.2068/09 21 summons. On this ground, the criminal proceedings were quashed and the complaint was directed to be returned to the respondent who was given liberty to file the same in an appropriate court. That was also a case of complaint for an offence under Sections 498A and 406 Cr.PC filed by the wife against the appellants therein."

We accordingly do so."

In Bhuraram's case (supra) a complaint was lodged before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganganagar. It was sent for investigation under section 156(3) of code of Criminal Procedure. After investigation a final report was filed before the same Magistrate showing that offence under section 498A and 406 of Indian Penal Code was committed. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganganagar took cognizance of the offence and later framed the charge also. Thereafter the accused raised a contention before the Magistrate that the said court has no jurisdiction to try the case as cause of action accrued within the jurisdiction of another court. When it was rejected it was challenged before the Sessions Court in revision and when it was rejected Crl.M.C was preferred before the High Court under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court dismissed the petition holding that although the marriage was solemnised at Village Ramsara of Ferozpur District right from the marriage the complainant and her husband were living in Punjab with her in-laws and her husband died and she was then residing in Ganganagar District in Rajasthan along with her maternal relations but still offence under section 498A being a Crl.M.C.1468/09 & Crl.R.P.2068/09 27 continuing one the complaint cannot be dismissed on that ground as the offence of cruelty being a continuing offence is still continuing within the local area of Rajasthan where at present the complainant was living and therefore Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganganagr had jurisdiction to try the case. It was challenged before the Apex Court. Their Lordships held:-