Ravindra and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

B.K. Rathi, J.—Heard Sri A.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Applicant. Sri D.B. Jaiswal and the learned A.G.A.

This revision u/s 397/401, Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the order dated 22.12.1997 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur, in Criminal Case No. 750 of 1997 by which he summoned the Applicant to stared trial for offence u/s 406/506, I.P.C.

A preliminary objection was raised by Sri. D.V. Jaiswal that against that order the Applicant had filed Petition No. 843 of 1998 u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure which has been dismissed on 11.3.1998. It is contended that against the same order the revision is not maintainable. As against this the contention of the learned Counsel for the Applicant is that the application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected on the ground that the revision is maintainable against the order.

I have perused the order. No doubt in the order dated 11.3.1998 of this Court there is observation that the revision is maintainable against the order, but the application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure was not rejected on that ground. It was considered on merits and it was held that the cause of action arose at Kanpur, therefore, the Kanpur Court has jurisdiction to try the matter. As such the Kanpur Court did not commit any error in law in entertaining the case and issuing the summons against the Applicant.

The contention in this revision again is that the Court at Kanpur has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter, as the complaint itself says that the entire cause of action arose at Etawah. This point has already been decided in the application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed.

The revision is dismissed accordingly.