HI6H COURT QF CHHATTISeARH AT BIL^SPUR Cr.M.P.No.l59of20Q9 Appjsear»t Chanda Bai Jain aged 47 years, daughter of Shri Sugan Chand Jain, resident of Pathariya-road Mungeii, Poii'ce Station" Mungeli, District Biitfspur (Chhattisgarh) Non-QselicQnt Versus State of ChhQttisgarh through the police station Balod, district Dur9 (Chhatti^garh) (Appiicatior! under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. ShQrma. J.) Mr. Somna1+i Verma, counse! for the applicant. ^r.P.ajendra Tripathi, Pane! bwyer for the non-applicemt/State. ORALORDER ^ssssd on 22nd September, 2009) 1. The appiicant has filed this petition for quashmment of the order framing charge dated 2.7.2008 passed by l+re Judicial Magistrate First Ctess, Babd, in CriminQ! Case No.348/2007 whereby leamed JudicJaS AAagistrate First Class has framed 1+ie charge for 1+ie offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian-Penai Code and.Section 4 of the bowry Prohibition Act against the appilcant. 2. Quashment is prayed on the ground that entire cause of action reiating to the offence arose within the territorial jurisdictjon of the Court situQted at Mungeli cund not within the terrltoriaJ jurisdictson of the Court situated at Babd, therefore, framlng of the char9e and contlnuance of the crlmlna! pwceedmQ would amount to abyse of the process of the Court. 3- I have heard !e<irned counse! for the parties and perused the order impugned and other documents fjled on behalf of the appiscartt. ^&:M£lM;:i/:^fc^i^Ii^^^ \. -2- 4, Learned counse! for the appiicant submits that according to the FJ.R., entire cause of actionarose at Mungeii and not at Babd, Even in the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of CrTOJna! Procedure, 1973 (in short lthe Code')/the <!:omp!ainant has stated that her husband has demanded money and a^saulted her at Balod, but the applicont has not committed ony offence within the temtoria! jurisdiction of 'tfrie Court situated at Balod. 5. On the other hand, order smpugned is supported on behalf of counse! for the non-app'icant/StQte ond submits 1+iat the statcment of the compiainant is sufficient for taking cognizance and framing of the charge against 1+se applicant by the Court situated at BaSod. 6. The present appiscant is relative of husband of the compbinont- Statement of the comptainant recorded under Section 161 of ttiie Code reveais that most of part of the offence has been committ'ed in Mung^'i but one part of the offence has been committ'ed wsthin the territoria! Jurisdiction of the Court situated at Baiod when husband of the compbinant went to Babd where he committed cruelty and assaulted the compteinant, Z befinjtely, the present appiicQnt has not committed any offence at Balod but part of the offence has committed wi^in the terrstorla! Jurisdiction of the Court situated at BQlod by other co-accused, therefore, the Court situated at Balod is also haying Jurisdiction to try the case against the accused persons rebting to the offence jncbdmg series of offence. I do not find any substance m thjs petitlon- 8. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is Hable to be dismissed cnd jt is hereby dismissed. Sd/- i TP.Sharma 1 Judge