High CourtsSingle Bench(2006) 04 RAJ CK 0053

Kaushalya and Another vs State of Rajasthan and Another

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 20 April 2006 · Citation: (2006) 2 DMC 266

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.S. Sarraf, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No''s. 1698 and 1699 of 2005

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 716 words

G.S. Sarraf, J.—The two petitions u/s 482, Cr. P.C. are directed against two orders dated 17.9.2005 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai in Criminal Case No. 426/2005. (FIR No. 48/2005, Police Station Niwai).

2.

The facts in brief are that one Pinki Kanwar filed a complaint under Sections 120-B, 313, 323, 341, 354, 406, 420, 498-A and 509, IPC against the four petitioners in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai, which was sent to Niwai Police Station for investigation u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. The police conducted the investigation and filed a charge sheet under Sections 498-A, 406, 341, 323, 313 and 354, IPC against the petitioners Vikram Singh and Bhairo Singh only. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai not only took cognizance of the above offences against the petitioners Vikram Singh and Bhairo Singh but also took cognizance of the offences under Sections 498-A, 313 and 120-B, IPC against the petitioner Kaushalya and of the offence u/s 498-A, IPC against the petitioner Reena. The four petitioners have filed these two petitions to challenge the aforesaid two cognizance orders.

3.

According to the complaint filed by Pinki Kanwar in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai. the marriage between her and the petitioner Vikram Singh took place at Niwai on 4.5.2003 and thereafter they resided in the nuptial home situated at Gangapur, District Bhilwara where she was abused, beaten and tortured by the petitioners and the petitioners refused to return her "Stridhan". The miscarriage is also alleged to have taken place at Gangapur.

4.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners has challenged the cognizance orders on the ground that all the acts of cruelty, criminal breach of trust and miscarriage etc. were committed at Gangapur, District Bhilwara, therefore, the Court at Niwai did not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case. He has relied on 2004 CRILJ 401. He has also pointed out that the petitioner Reena is a minor.

Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that the offences are continuing and, therefore, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai has jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

5.

Sections 177 to 186 of the Cr. P.C. deal with place of inquiry and trial. Section 177, Cr. P.C. says that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 178. Cr. P.C. reads as under:

Section 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 enquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.

6.

The crucial question is whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Niwai Court? In other words whether any offence or part of it was committed at Niwai?

7.

A careful perusal of the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai reveals that the complainant Pinki Kanwar was abused, beaten and tortured at Gangapur and it is there the petitioners refused to hand over the ''Stridhan'' to her. The miscarriage was also caused at Gangapur.

8.

Considering the above facts the inevitable conclusion is that no part of the cause of action arose at Niwai and, therefore, the Niwai Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with the matter and as such the proper course is to transfer the case in the Court having, jurisdiction as held by Hon''ble Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Suresh Kaushal and Another,

9.

If Reena is a minor as contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners then in that case she is free to approach the Trial Court for appropriate relief.

10.

Consequently the Criminal Case No. 426/2005 (FIR No. 48/2005, Police Station, Niwai) pending in the Court of Niwai is transferred to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara for disposal in accordance with law.

The two petitions stand disposed of as above.