1 6.WP.3033-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3033 OF 2010 Lalit Mohan Basant Gaumat. .. Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. .... Mr.Sanjay Pandey, Advocate i/b. R.O. Pathak, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.J.P. Kharge, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A. R. JOSHI, J. DATED : 06TH MAY, 2011. P. C. : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. Heard rival submissions for sometime on this Criminal Writ Petition. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner / accused has challenged the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.17, Mazgaon, Mumbai dated 11.9.2007 and also the order of the Sessions Court, Sewree, Mumbai dated 24.4.2009. 2 6.WP.3033-10 2. The marriage between the present petitioner and his wife (who is not made as a party in the present Writ Petition) was solemnized sometime in October, 1997. Thereafter, somewhere in the year, 2001 present petitioner/husband lodged Civil Suit No.692 of 2001 for declaration of marriage being null and void on account of his wife was already married to some third person prior to her marriage with the present Petitioner. Said suit was filed before the competent Court at Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh. Said Suit was decreed. Said decree and order was challenged by the wife by Appeal No.117 of 2002. Said appeal was also dismissed. As such, the wife filed second appeal before the High Court at Allahabad and the same is still pending. 3. During the same time of such civil litigation, somewhere in the year, 2001 itself, the wife came down to Mumbai to stay with her parents apparently on the ground of ill-treatment and harassment meted out to her at her matrimonial house in Bulundshahar. She filed First Information Report with Byculla police station for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC 3 6.WP.3033-10 against the present petitioner. Said matter is pending as C.C. No.1382/P/2002. 4. In the year, 2004 in the said pending matter, present petitioner filed an application challenging the jurisdiction of the Mumbai Court on the ground that no cause of action has arisen before the Mumbai Court. The said application was finally heard and dismissed by order dated 11.9.2007 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court and the said order was confirmed by the Sessions Court vide order dated 24.4.2009. 5. During the arguments it is submitted on behalf of the present petitioner / accused that no cause of action has arisen in Mumbai so as to Mumbai Court can take any action against the petitioner and the present matter which is pending before the M.M. Court at Mumbai is required to be transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh. It is further submitted that there was nothing that the present petitioner had given threats to his wife who was then staying at Mumbai. 6. It is apparent that both the trial Court and the first 4 6.WP.3033-10 revisional Court had passed concurrent orders not allowing the plea of the petitioner / accused so far as territorial jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Mumbai is concerned. Needless to mention that the question of jurisdiction is dependent on various factors and it is a question of law and facts. In fact, what is alleged in the First Information Report is required to be prima facie construed as to giving jurisdiction to any particular Court. In the present matter, it is alleged by wife that she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home and came down to Mumbai. It further appears that threat was given by the present petitioner / accused to his wife of burning her alive if she do not fulfill the demands and such treat was conveyed to the wife at Mumbai by some relative – one Smt.Dayadevi Gupta. 7. All the same, in the writ jurisdiction the fact finding as to whether the Court at Mumbai had jurisdiction or not, cannot be decided and the said question can also be taken up during the trial and on that count there is no need to interfere with the impugned orders of the M.M. Court and the Sessions Court at Mumbai. 5 6.WP.3033-10 However, the contention as to the Court having jurisdiction or not can also be decided by the trial Court after appreciating the material on record as the said question is a question of law and facts mixed together. In that view of the matter, present Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) PPD