1 S. B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.718/2007 DR. AJAY KUMAR & OTHERS V. STATE & ANOTHER. DATE OF ORDER ::: 17-09-2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. TOTLA Mr. Niranjan Singh, for Petitioner (s). Mr. S. N.Tiwari, PP, for the State. Mr.Pankaj Sharma, for Respondent. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., seeks quashing of proceedings of case No.306/06 pending against the petitioners for the offences of Sections 498-A and 406, IPC on ground of lack of jurisdiction. Except the marriage was solemnized at Hanumangarh, no other allegation of within jurisdiction of Hanumangarh is so neither PS, Hanumangarh had any jurisdiction to investigate, nor Hanumangarh Court has jurisdiction to try the case. Argued that some demand or action within jurisdiction other than marriage itself necessary. In support of contention, reliance placed on (i) 2007 (2) CJ (Raj.) 570 Shahida (Smt.) v. State of Rajasthan & Another, and (ii) 2007 (1) SCC (Cri.) 336, Manish Ratan & Others v. State of M.P. & Another. On behalf of the petitioner, attention of the Court also invited towards the statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., of respondent-complainant. Learned Public Prosecutor stated that cause of action ground at within jurisdiction of Hanumangarh too. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that even as jurisdiction can be only at the marriage of place – further clear allegations of improper act within jurisdiction of Hanumangarh are there. Argued that on this belated stage when the charge is framed, no interference under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is desirable. In support of contention relianced placed on (i) judgment dated August 22, 2006 in S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.477/2005, Vinod Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Another, (ii) judgment dated December 11, 2007 in S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1847/2007, Smt. Neeta Chaturvedi v. State of Rajasthan, & (iii) (1997) 5 SCC 30, Sujata Mukherjee (Smt.) v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee. Considered and perused. At this stage, in the petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., it is not proper to express any point or regarding alleged 2 acts. Perusing the material and considering that marriage has admittedly solemnized at Hanumangarh and trial's stage is that of prosecution evidence, the application, being not entertainable, is liable rejected. Hence, the petition is rejected. (C. M. TOTLA), J. scd