1 S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.186/2007 Gautam Chand & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order :: 7th January, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Anil Vyas, for the petitioners. Mr. Vishnu Kachhwaha, Public Prosecutor. Mr. R.K.Soni, for the respondent. .... This revision petition is preferred to challenge the order dated 4.1.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC against the petitioners. In brief, facts of the case are that marriage of respondent Smt. Rekha Bafna was solemnised with petitioner Shri Gautam Chand on 30.4.2006 at village Devatu, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur. Smt. Rekha submitted a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur alleging torture and harassment by her husband and other members of the “in-laws family”. Accordingly, the complaint was sent to Mahila Police Station, Jodhpur for investigation. After regular investigation learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed challan before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur. 2 The contention of the petitioners is that no cognizance of the offences alleged could have been taken by the Magistrate at Jodhpur as even as per the facts stated in complaint no allegation of commission of offence pertaining to the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate at Jodhpur. As per facts averred in the complaint the demand of dowry was made at Howrah (West Bengal) and thereafter Smt. Rekha Bafna returned to Devatu, thus, the cognizance of the offences either could have been taken at Howrah (West Bengal) or the court having jurisdiction to inquire or to try the offences said to have taken place at Devatu. To substantiate the contention, reliance is also placed upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Kishanlal v. State, (2005(8) RDD 3251. It is asserted that the order taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC by learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur is bad being lacking jurisdiction. I have gone through the record made available including the complaint filed by Smt. Rekha Bafna. In the complaint it is stated that “Baarat” to marry Rekha Bafna was proceeded from Jodhpur and some of the rituals took place at Jodhpur and, therefore, learned Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur was having jurisdiction to try the matter. During the 3 course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents quite fairly and frankly accepted that entire “Saptapadi” and other essential rituals relating to marriage took place at village Devatu, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur and not at Jodhpur. It is also not in dispute that Smt. Rekha Bafna is residing at Devatu after alleged desertion. From the facts available on record it is apparent that whatever cause of action arose warranting adjudication that was either at Howrah or at Devatu, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur. In view of it the cognizance taken by learned Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur, therefore, is without jurisdiction. Hence, the order impugned dated 4.1.2007 is quashed. In the instant matter the investigation was made at Mahila Police Station, Jodhpur and that is having jurisdiction to investigate the cases relating to atrocities on women in entire district, therefore, in totality of facts of the case it is desirable to direct the court below to return the challan submitted before it by Station House Officer, Mahila Police Station, Jodhpur with a direction to submit the same through the Public Prosecutor concerned to the court having jurisdiction to adjudicate the events taken place at village Devatu, Tehsil Shergarh District Jodhpur. 4 The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.