3plicant e> /Accuscd) ^PTA?^ y^ li'^H^C.SHABMA'v't- VXSllfrPUS'DISTT'. "' > T: l! 'lW^^^C-W^ ^,i^vTTT'y>'y^fff i®;—"^y. K^^^o^^ ^i^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Singjg S Cr.M.P. No. f0 I / 2006 1. Khetmal Soni, 51 Yrs. S/o Krishnaram Ji Soni, 2. Smt. Aiiny Devi @ Hemabai, 48 Yrs., w/o Khetmal Soni, 3. Smt. Jyoti Soni, 24 Yrs., w/o Jagdish Soni 4. Om Prakash Soni, 24 Yrs. S/o Khetinal Soni, All R/o Near jOswal Bhavan, Danteshwari Jewelers, Geedain, Distt. Dantewada VERSUS State of Chattisgarh Through DM Durg For Quashins of Criminal Case No. 965/05 in the Court ofJMFC, Durg Presided by Shri Abdul Jahid Qureshi. Apt)lication under Sec. 482. Cr.P.C.. 1973 XI-HC-22 ^s? "41'Mici^, (<>Tfly<i<i, facii'yy< 311^1 ^ach . .OL.-.M.'.R:.^O'..I.E'I iTTOCT'gwra?-*"''"""1"''"'""^ 200& Rl'b.A sn^TEpT feriqisn^r StiH' trf?cT i»>H 3TI^T?R[TSn:<rf?d ifipfeift'-Twrof^'te^ri^zn: ^iSTRfITSTf^I •A SfS 21.2.2007 Shri Raia Sharma, counl Heard on admissiou. el for ttie applicants. This revision has been filed for quashiae of the proceedines of fhe Crimiaal Case No.9^5/2005 pendine in the Court of J.M.F.C. Durg, A uerusal of fhe paper) Information Report. lodged by Mahila Thana, Dure, on 13.7. book would show fh.at on a First the com.ulaina&t namely Poonam in 005, a case vide Crime No.36/2005 under section 498-A read i^ith section 34 of I.P.C has been rcsastered agamst the anolicafcits. It appears tliat on the basis of said F.I.R., investigation was 498-A read with section 34 & comnleted and a charee sheet u/s bectiou 406 IPC aad section 4 of the Dowrv Prohibition Act was Sled agauist the petitioners in ttie Court of J.M.F.C. Dure vide after this.the petltioners who :Crimmal Case No.965/2005. !t is ire accused Taersons.have visited this Court for quashiag offhe proc^edings ofthe said cnmtnal case. Leanied couusel for th' offence u/s 498-A IPC is not Tietidoners argues that siace au h continuins ofFence and no part of (tf^y^) f':i XI-HC-78 HIHWI ShW<Sh 3:sr •^ww'f, WT^WIS, istdi'yy< ^c.v...)y.-.e;.^J/^ 200 an^rwR-fich (raTSii^iaiiiqi 311^1 4ach (liclt^°t^!ST) ??cTTW;Hf?(T3TI^T •7-- cause of action arose in the Dure. therefore. the charee sbeet ffled in the court ofJ.M.F.C., Dure was not coinpetent and iurisdiction to trv fhe o£Fenc Chanter XIII of fhe Code of Cr(niiual Procedzu-e. I have heard leamed coilnsel for the oetitionei^ at leneth. Chaoter XIII of the Codd; of Cnmiual Procedure orovides for iurisdiction of fhe criminal coiirts in inquiries aud trials. Sectiou 177 urovides for ordiaary pla^ tried bv a Court withia whosel Section 178 provides for plac^ offences when it is uncertam) one local area aad pardy in coutiniune oue, and continuj areas fhaa one, or where if the offence mav be iaquirec] '*il''<fl-l41-( HWvf\ ff f5<S I,KIW( ^STl^fTSTi^r temtorial Jurisdiction of courts of fhe aforesaid Court is haviua no He refers -to the provisions of e of enauuv aad trial. It has been orovided that everv offence sfaaU ordinarilv be iuquired into and local iurisdiction it was coiiuaitted. of inauuy or torial in rclation to the in which of several local areas an offence was couimitted, or wh^re aa offence is coininitted partly in another, or where aa ofFence is a •s to be committed in inore local consists of several acts done m. difierent local areas. It has Iteen urovided fhat in aU such cases in.to or tried bv a Court havine P.T.O. XI-HC-78 -t7!3:=T;-qi<.l|rt*l,eiTf1iM*ls,'{s|(«||<Hy. iMI*1iMI SfiHlctl •••••.•••••...^% ~^-; 200 > Eafi^i'tijaqi^^iiciyBjiisr) sn^Twf^tR;1 l^Tsh^lcb STHTWflf^crsn^r 3 iurisdiction over anv of such readuis of these two sections bv section 177 is one of fhe crimiaal trials held under fhi the exceptions elsewherc pro^i 178 eovems fhe exceptions a; Approvine the decision AIR 1937 Bom. 186 (Ramn.dt-awtui Baburao -vs- Emoeror). the Supreme Court laid down in llhe matter of Ntwvfiuil Vs- State of Bombau, AXR 1960 S.C. 1 Section 177, Criminal P.C, otherwise ia ffae Code." Th( provide for fhe trial of offencl thaa is Drescribedibv sectkin the relevant provislons of fhe the general principles prescrit) Refemns t6 ftie decit Purushottxwitleis Ddlmltt VJi SC 1589), L.N.aiulcheriee ^i«(<i41-<KiKciT ff teril' (fSferc ^arf^R'sn^^RK 'vf- local areas. Therefdre. a coniouit lyould show fhat fhe rule laid down sneral anoUcations and govems all provisions of the Code, subiect to ded ia the Code. Where as section are provided therem. of Bonibav High Court reported ui 29 that fhe word "ordmarilv" in means "except where provided State Leaislafrure is coinpetent to s created bv its statutes otherwise 77: but it raust clearlv apnear fix>in pecial statute fhat a departure from ;d bv section 177 is iiitended. ions rendered in the inatter of Stetc of West Benaal fASt 1961 's- State of Maaras\fASt 1961 SC P.T.O. "'•l 7^' XI-HC-78 HIHWI ShWfh 3^'-i|l«!MO,®-rfl<Hi|]S,:f6|d|y^< .,0r. .<n-.f. JAL ^200 ^icS<'i^acft(4cli^s|«i<T) sn^TwfN^1 ?W3?TT^nTs,b^fct) (^ ??(iTWHf?(T3n^r 'Lf 1601). BeuuaeirUid^ JhuiUhunStoalla eind others -Vs- Unton of India and another, AB? 2963 S.C. 16^0 emd Mohcn Btdthu and others -vs- State pf Bijtiar and tuiothcr, 12001) 4 SCC 350, the Apex Court heUt in anri others -vs- Inspector o_r Police. Chenncrf <ind another, 2004 AQ? SCW 4788 fhat tDie exception implied bv the word "ordiiiarilv' need not be limited the law aad exceptions may bi or inav be imoUed froni fhe prol ofoffences bv fhe same court. Therefore. it is well se) circumstances are there as at local limits, the offence was otherwise in the Code of Crimirt Ifwe examine fhe conteil page 7, it would appear fhat was beine treated wifh cruelty) laws' place which is adinitte4 •=hi'iifi'i41^ wRfr' ir' te^'<Ri(.t;i< ' ^3Tf^tT3n^T':'; :-. Ithe matter of Y^Mihrahemt Aftth to those spec^Uv provided for bv provided by law on consideration isions oflaw pemiittme ioint ta-ials tled that unless the exceDtional e embodied u/s 178 Cr.P.C., fhe iurisdiction to trv aa offence sltall be with the Court within whose •oiruiutted except where provided al Procedure. ts ofthe F.I.R. ffled in this case at fae com.plainaut has ;saul fhat she bv the accused persons in her in- Iv situated at Geedam in District P.T.O. XI-HC-78 sn^rwf^Tffi (Wsn^rshHicti *<m^TT Sh*1|eh 3^? •^TFTRTq', 8'Tn<111(o, fsfdiyy ^..u.nfJ.<f/.^ ,«« aTl^TTggr (^qt^'a^'sT) gTdTSRfffN'sn^T Dantewada (south Bastar). SIIie laakes aUceations that there was deiaaad of Rs. 1 lakh bv the aitolicaats and when she came to her parents place hi Dure, her hu to Durg alongwith his fiiend brother namelv Maaoi oaid a ^uin of Rs.50. and when that amount was ri she was taken bv hitn. She filrther states that when she reached Geedam fhen aU. fhe Detitioneits started beatme her on account of bringine less amount and thevl filed, fhe Court of J.M.F.C. entertam such a chai^e sh ^rafefh'wcfcfr'if teccft'rf^TCTT ^•aTRriTsiT^T ibaud fpetitioner no.4 herein) came Diaesh Thakut- and in Duis her - to the husband ceived bv the husbaad. then onlv had ooured Kerosene oil oa her. It is after this, the gul aasaxi cslme back to her pareuts place and thereafter she lodced fhe repoift. On perusal of the conte^its of F.I.R., it is apparent that on account of part pavinent inalde in Durg, the complaiaant was being treated with cruelty add admittedly in view of the above, part of cause of action also aifose in the territorial iurisdiction of courts Situated ia Durs' aad iFfhe F.I.R. was lodged at Dure aad on that icoort. investieation wlas comroleted aad charee sheet was Durg was havine fuU authority to •et and there apoears to be no P.T.O. 751 XI-HC-22 sn^rqiT ^iwsn^r giiri't) (fe ^- 3^ •^ii'iiici^, ©Tjlu'KS,(si<fli*iy< 311^1 M^cb ^ff:i..i('.l/.°i HWW\ sb*<i<*> 200 f^s aii^l ^diwtrfgtr £- iurisdictional error warrautitie iaterference by this Court for The petition has no me <t>i<<I'i41-i iiti<aTtff3c^'<Ri«i< ^;3TRW311^T auashine of charee sheet for i^ant of territorial iurisdiction. Except this. no other eround was raisled before nie in this petition. motion staee. lits aad the same is dismissed at fhe Sd/- SunyKumar Sinha Judge -U^1!-^A^ f'il