® 3^? •^ww^, a-rfly'is, Rirti+fy —...o'?:;.^;/7i o l ^WVIl "shtilcb"""'""""""""""""""""'"""'"""""""^ 200 7 sir^r v Cpf^g^ti) 31^51.%! R-litfe W3tl^t *<4i<* TOiiwgfsff aii^r Applicants l." Ka^haiya Lal, aged 28 years, son of Sh^i Tulsidas Poptani 2. Kaitila Devi, aged 52 years, wife of Shifi Tulsidas Poptani, 3. Ne^lam, aged 20 years, daughter of Shifi Tulsidas Poptani. 4. S,a4tosh, aged 20 years, son of Shri Tuljsidas Poptani, 5;; Tuljsidas, aged 56 years, son of Shri ;. To^andas Poptani, All 6. of Non-applicants Vs. 1. ^T<1^T4M ^lffll^) ^ fST3tL ^f3R^l< ^'aiRwsiT^r residents of A.N Guha lane, Saijnbalpur (Orissa) Tai|a Panjwani, aged 25 years, wife Kanhaiyalal, Lalpienagar, near resident of electric office, Ra^pur, P.S. Purani Basti Raipur, Di^trict Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Sts|te of Chhattisgarh, through the pol^ce station Mahila Thana, Civil Linje, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Sm|t. Radhika Poptani, aged 27 ye4rs, wife of Kanhaiyalal Poptani, res|ident of Ramniketan Chawl, Se^patroad, Sarkanda, police station Safkanda, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 12.9.2007 Shri Somnath Verma, Shri Upendra Bharat, 2. c|3unsel for the applicants. :ounsel for the non-applicant No. 2. The applicants have Section 482 of the Cr.P.C Pebruary 2007 of Annexuri prjsferred the instant petition under against the order dated 28th P/13 whereby the learned II GRPRJ— FS/24&.- 2^007 — 50.000/ XI-HC-22 SIT^T^I r<-ii;* si^i sfilM flf^l "ffitseN -T^ ••2fi'liici''<, s'dlwiis. fa'iwy HIHWIWWft 31T^?T IR^? _J^£.r£)..:£:4-^- '^1. 2007 (c|'b<^(' SII^I'TOIISJT ^tf^r Additidnal Sessions Judge, revision preferred by the ( 8.1.2007 passed by Judicia) pilaspur has dismissed the criminal ipplicants against the Ofder dated Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur. :a|tion c|f ttie thtt 3; Grievance of;theapp( Infonnation Reporfjdated No. 2 at Poliee Station Mabila Sections 498A arid 506B/3fi them and 'after investiga|tion 30.6.2003 in the Gourt Bilaspur. From perusal of FIR it would be evident within the territorial jurisdii|:tion the allegations of harassm^ taken place at Sambhalpu} rejected the application o| criminal proceedings for order of Annexure P/ 1C| application for the same) 8.1.2007. Thereafter, th^ revision against the above o| dismissed by the revisibnal Annexure P/13. 41<li<-l4l-l 'II'raf'? fS^t <r<n'K;]< i?3(f;m3II^I licants is that on the basis of First t.5.2003 filed by the non-applicant Thana, Bilaspur offence under of the IPC was registered against charge sheet was filed on Judicial Magistrate First Class, whole charge sheet including the no part of cause of action arose of the J.M.F.C., Bilaspur as all ;nt and tortures are said to have -, Orissa, however, the trial Court the applicants for dropping the of territorial jurisdiction vide dated 21.6.2006 and another purpose was also rejected on applicants preferred a criminal t-der and the same has been further ;ourtvide order dated 28.2.2007 of ttant ?.* XI-HC-22 SIT^IWI fsTwsn^f g?RW^Tl^r KS'!s:'8BI!isi Ssswmy •s^ 'tii*iM<), riTil'y'i'i. facii'My 3TT^T TR^ ^ *iiHCTia)iicn""""""""'"'"""" ^I. 200 "fa^I""""""""""""""""'" aii^r^'^iw ^ifei 3 4. Relying upon the Abrahant Ajith and otheri and another, 2004 AIR SCW 4788. and Vakil Kapoor and others Vs. State of C.G.a|ndan<»ther. 2006(21 C.G.L.J. 133, it has been contended thatl the root of the niqitter ^ committed illegality by leamed Magistrate has no sheet.: the question of jurisdiction goes to Ind both the Courts below have [ssuniing jurisdiction though the Ijurisdiction to entertain the charge conterided charfee 5. On the bther hand, No.2/complairiant ten-itorial jurisdiction was tiine after fraraing of they submitted to the Magistrate without any ob finality as they have not cl these circumstances, the ii It is further argued that 397(3) of the Cr.P.C. under Section 482 of the revision prefen-ed by the by the leamed Additional instanf petition is not ma; Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.I Idamed secolid (tr. att *llfcf<fl-1 WTCif ^ fe?t <RD<(K ^ 3)f:gii 3i^i udgments in the matters of Y. Vs Insnector of Police, Chennai counsel for the non-applicant that objection regarding ijaised by the applicants for the first on 4.10.2005 and prior to that tert-itorial jurisdiction of the leamed lection and the same has attained liallenged framing of charge and in iijistant petition is not maintainable. loo(sing to the bar contained-in Section revision in the garb of petition -.P.C. cannot beentertained. The a]|)plicants has already been rejected pessions Judge and therefore, the jntainable in view of provisions of He further submits that thougb (C. f T?!^ XI-HC-22 •rsg '^n^fvpf. y^y'iii. r««'ii'M*i< aii^i^l K-U* sf^fl '^lNi"?Tf?^ '..t.^'^'^'iy''^' ! SS1KS-""' B ..-•^tafasgS' 31T^?T 'VRK 11HWI th*ll<»l "^n, 200 fc|*<W harassment is alleged at ^ consequence of the haras] *i*il<'i4'< ^w<S'? ft^t <Riit$i<. '^3lPOT3II^[ 'ambhalpur, Orissa, nevertheless in pinent meted out to non-applicant No.2/complainant her r4latives were telephoned by the complainant from Sambha^pur to save her from the atrocities of the accused persons. 6. Referririg to Secfion i, argued that harassment to| or any person related to h^ any property or valuable] 98A Explanation (b) of theIPC, it is a woman with a view to coerce her r to ineet any unlawful demand for security also constitutes offence within the meaning of Sec^on 498A of the IPC. In the instant case the demands Were m|ade from the complainant and the same were in fact comiitunicated to her relatives by the complainant and as such,tjhe relatives of the complainant were also harassed on account applicants within the teri^ Bilaspur. iof some unlawful demands by the ttorial jurisdiction of the Court at 7. I have heard learned throygh the inaterial availa.1 8. In fhe matter of Y. that since complaint does 4 commission of any act where cognizance was take(i counsel for the parties and gone 3le on record. Aljiraham Ajit(supra) it has been held [ot disclose any demand of dowry or cojnstituting an offence at the place by the Court and no part of^ause s, s- 1 ^ ' ^r': XI-HC-22 XI-HC-22 SD^I^iI K;-<i.+ 3^1 *tli* Tll?g swyfff&. Sft i9' "s^ •^WH*), STil+i'i<». faciwy 3!T^?T 'q^? •<l*(CTlsh*ll<»)"~"""'"""~""""""""'"H;^ 2007 '^v^t'""""" sn^i ^griR •g(t?r dowijy of action arose at that placf to try the rnatter. 9. This Court in the mal relying upon the above judg held that jurisdiction to tr^ within whose local limits provided otherwise in the C' 10. In the instant case, tl Uas made allegations in tl beaten at her matrinionial name of demand of telephonically informed her torture and demand whereL bring her back to Bilaspur. the FIR as also in the state Apart from that, the accus proceedings for a against them on 15.3.2004. of charge by the learne application for dropping t 4.10.2005 vide Annexure Py 11. It is settled law that taken at wrong place wo^ considerlble ^T^i^i^ 'wRff ^ 'fe^t' •<,f<^i< ^;3lpOT3D^I , the said Court has no jurisdiction fer of Vakil Kapoor 6s others (supra) inent of theHon'ble Apex Court has an offence shall be with the Court the offence was cominitted except ?de. ic non-applicant No. 2/complainant le FIR that she was tortured and place at Sambhalpur, Orissa in the and due to above torture she parents at Bilaspur about the said .pon her parents sent her brother to The above allegation is present in nent of mother of the complainant. id persons participated in the trial period and charge was framed They have not ehallenged framing d Magistrate, Bilaspur and the tie proceedings was filed only on 986P/11. he mere fact that proceedings were ild not vitiate the trial unless it 1 •'.E :* iTi lit:I XI-HC-22 -s^ -tiwM'ii, ^•y'lii. fa<iwa< ^ *1[*<MI Shllth 3'IT^T XR^; ..&y^C2:A.(.D.t... "WI. 2007 ^^8T' sn^iqii Ki-li'* sil^I *4i<k vSw Iffis */ :"ii*l*;i»ii>igS aD^iTCnwafscT 6 appears that it has occasid ease, charge has already t the wita^esses have beea this Courf is of the considi case for quashing the proc under Sectipn 482 pftheC: 12. Aecordrngly, the pe1|ition being devoid of substance is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge 'tWiyi'il'f ^l^fit''? 1S^t <(a|^]< ^; SlPffCTSTT^t ned failure ofjustice. In the present leen framed, even the statements of •ecorded during trial and therefore, ;red opinion that present is not a fit sedings while exercisingjurisdiction -.P.C. 1*I ^°~^'