1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1158/2010 (Digvijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State & Anr.) Date of Order : 10.08.2010 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Rakesh Arora, for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Joshi, Public Prosecutor. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. In this misc. petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners are challenging the order dated 04.03.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Balotra whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed so also the order dated 02.08.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Balotra whereby charges were framed against the petitioners for offence under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no jurisdiction is left with the Judicial Magistrate, Balotara to frame charges against the petitioners because no cause of action arises to proceed against the petitioners for commission of offence 2 under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the allegation levelled against the petitioners is related to the city of Ajmer and the marriage of petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 22.11.2004 at J.K. Puram, Pindwada, District Sirohi, therefore at two places, the complaint can be filed by the complainant but instead of filing complaint at Sirohi or Ajmer, the complainant filed complaint at Sindhari District Barmer and after investigation challan was filed by the Police in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Balotara. As per learned counsel for the petitioners, no cause of action arises at Sindhari District Barmer. I have perused both the orders passed by trial Court as well as by revisional Court. In the order dated 02.08.2008, it is observed by the trial Court that brother in law of complainant left the complainant at Sindhari from where she had telephonic talk with her father and she immediately went to her father at Pindwara. The fact of demanding of dowry and forcibly leaving the complainant at Sindhari has been specifically stated by the complainant in her complaint. Meaning thereby, the part of cause of action arose at Sindhari, therefore, learned trial Court rejected the contention of the petitioners with regard to jurisdiction while framing charge against them. It emerges from plain reading of the order impugned that at the time of passing order of framing 3 charge against the petitioners, the trial Court has considered the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and in revision also, the revisional Court after taking into consideration Sections 177, 178 and 179 Cr.P.C. observed on the basis of the facts that part of cause of action arose at Sindhari and this fact can be considered in the evidence during trial. At this stage, it cannot be said that no cause of action arose at Sindhari. Learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioners considered the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by both the parties and arrived at with the finding that learned trial Court has rightly framed charges against the petitioners. In my opinion, the legality and propriety of the order passed by trial Court has already been seen by revisional Court and I am in full agreement with the order passed by revisional Court. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by Courts below while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, this misc. petition is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J arun