m THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURHAT BILASPUR Slngle Bez‘ach CRIMINAL REVISION No. “Nb gun APPLICANT : The State of Chhatu ,garh Through D1str1(,t Maglstrate, Rajnandgaon (C.G-.) VERSUS NON-APPLICANTS : 1. Sariiiosh Mehra, S / of— Mulayamchand Mshra, Aged about — 57 ’ 2. Smt. Pooja, W/o.— Santosh Mehra,. Aged about - 50 years 3. Sujeet Kumar, S/o.— Santosh Mehra, Aged about — 34 years ” r8 ‘ / / W ’ . W/o.— Smt. Kavita, Sujeet Kumar, Aged about ~ 31 years 5. Rajesh Kumar, S/o.— Santosh Kumar, Aged about — 25 years \ 6. Ku. Geeta, D/ o.— Santosh Mehra, Aged about — 26 yeas 7. Krishna Kumar, S/ o.— Santosh Mehra, Aged about — 28 years A11 are R/o.~ 1006, Amanpur, P.S.— Madan MahaLTahsil and District v— Jabalpur (M.P.) CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401(0F THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 The instant: criminal revision is directed. against the findings and order dated 19th November 2010 passed in Criminal Revision No. 03/2010 by the Court of Shri M.P. Singhal, Sessions Judge District — Rajnandgaon, whereby the learned subordinate Revisional Court set aside the order dated 27/01 /20].0 passed by (Q 6 w ‘ %r%4 Q? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRIMINAL REVISION NO.413 of 2011 APPLICANT The State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1 Santosh Mehra S/o Mulayamchand Mehra Aged about 57 2 Smt POOJa W/o Santosh Mehra, Aged about 50 years 3 Sujeet Kumar, S/o Santosh Mehra, a Aged about34 years 4 Smt. Kavita, W/o Sujeet Kumar, Aged about 31 years, 5 Rajesh Kumar, S/o Santosh Kumar, Aged about 25 years 6 Ku. Geeta, D/o Santosh Mehra, Aged about 26 years, 7 Krishna Kumar, S/o Santosh Mehra, Aged about 28 years All are R/o 1006, Amanpur, P.S. Madan Mahal Tahsil and District Jabalpur (M.P.) INAL REVI§ION UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE arance : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate for the applicant/State. ORAL ORDER (29.07.201 1) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. (1) Heard on LA. No.01/2011 (2) This is an application filed for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. CRIM Appe l/ 2 @ Criminal Revision No. 4 1 3 of 201 1 (3) On due consideration of the submissions made by learned Govt. Advocate and the grounds taken in the condonation application, i am satisfied that the State has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for not fiiing the revision in time and the delay in filing the revision deserves to be condoned. (4) Accordingly, LA. No. 01/2011 is allowed and the delay in filing the revision is condoned. (5) Also heard on admission. (6) The applicant/State has filed this revision against the order dated 19th of November 2010 passed in Criminal Revision No.03/2010 by the Session Judge, Rajnandgaon. By the impugned order, the learned Session Judge allowed a Criminal Revision filed by the respondents/accused against the order of framing of charges under Section 498-A/34 ’IPC in Criminal Case No.1538/2009 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon. (7) Respondent No.7 was married to complainant— Manisha Mehra on 16.01.2007. The marriage was solemnized in Jabalpur. Manisha Mehra filed a written complaint on 24.01.2008 in Police Station Laibagh, Rajnandgaon. ln the written compliant, she made various allegations of treating her with cruelty by her husband and his relatives. The case of the prosecution is that though the allegations relating to treating the complainant with cruelty relates to Jabalpur, however, there is also allegation that once husband and in-laws’ of the complainant had visited Dongargarh, and at that time, they had demanded Rs.20 lakhs and a car for establishing the business of the husband of the complainant from her father. On the above allegations, the trial Court framed charges under Section 498-A/34 IPC against all the respondents. The said order was challenged in Revision by the respondents. The Session Judge referring to the judgment rendered in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mumtaz Begum and others, 2007 (3) M.P. Weekly Note 108, held that demanding money for establishing the business never amounts to demand of dowry. The Session Judge further held that since the entire 3 Criminal Revision NoA 41 Q owm I @ cause of a_ction arose in territorial jurisdiction of Jabalpur court, the Court at Rajnandgaon wiil not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The Session Judge set—aside the charges framed against the respondents and directed that the charge sheet be returned to the prosecution for filing j it before the Court of competent jurisdiction. (8) Mr. Satish Gupta, learned Govt. Advocate, argued that the learned Session Judge was not justified in allowing the revision on the above grounds and directing return of'the charge-sheet for tiling before a court of competent jurisdiction. (9) Chapter Xlll of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials. Section 177 provides for ordinary place of enquiry and trial. lt has been provided that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 178 provides for place of inquiry or trial in! relation to the offences when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be Committed in more local areas than one, or where it consists of several acts done in different local areas. lt has been provided that in all such cases the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Therefore, a conjoint reading of these two sections would show that the rule laid down by section 177 is one of the general applicatidns - and governs all criminal trials held under the provisions of the Code, subject to the exceptions elsewhere provided in the Code, whereas section 178 governs the exceptions as are provided therein. (10) Section 498—A provides that whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to tine. An Explanation has been added to section 498-A according to which the “cruelty" for the purpose of this Section means any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to l l l 1 4 @ Criminal Revision No. 41 3 of 201 1 Iife, Iimb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman or harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any untawfu! demand for any property or vatuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. (11) ln the instant case, there is no evidence to show that demand of R320 lakhs and a car was unlawful or it was made with the View of harassment. On the contrary,£=‘it comes that the above demand was allegedly made for the purpose of establishing the business of the husband. Since there is no evidence to show that the alleged amount and . f) ‘ a car were demanded as dowry or they were demanded to harass the complainant, it cannot besaid that the complainant was subjected to ‘cruelty’ within the jurisdiction of Rajnandgaon Court. (12) ln light of the above factuai position, l do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Session Court that the Magistrate sitting at Rajnandgaon was having no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the Session Judge was right in procedure in directing that the charge sheet be returned to the prosecution for filing it before the competent court. \ (13) There is no substance in the Revision Petition. The same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. /\ Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha N . Judge \t