1 S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.829/2007 Babu Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Judgment :: 29th February, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Narpat Singh, for the petitioner. Mr. Narendra Moolchandani, Public Prosecutor. Mr. Vineet Jain, for the respondent No.2. .... By order dated 11.7.2007, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pali, while accepting an application preferred under Section 177 Cr.P.C., held that the court was not possessing territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the case relating to offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC against respondent No.2 Shri Surendra Singh and, thus, discharged him with liberty to the complainant petitioner to submit a complaint at the place having requisite territorial jurisdiction. By this revision petition challenge is given to the order aforesaid. In brief, facts of the case are that the petitioner submitted a written report dated 7.3.2007 to the Superintendent of Police, District Pali stating therein that fourth amongst his six daughters Smt. Suman Kanwar got married with Surendra Singh on 2 21.2.2000 at Pali. At the time of marriage, though adequate gifts and other articles were given but the respondent No.2 and his family members ill-treated with Suman Kanwar with demand of dowry. It was also stated that Smt. Suman Kanwar on being highly tortured by her husband Surendra Singh came to Pali in the year 2004 and only after getting an undertaking in writing on 30.10.2004 by her husband, she proceeded for her matrimonial home. As per the averments stated in the complaint, Surendra Singh was also having extra marital relations and those were objected by Suman Kanwar. Ultimately on 24.2.2007 Smt. Suman Kanwar died as a consequence of a conspiracy made by Surendra Singh. On basis of the complaint aforesaid, a criminal case was registered at Mahila Police Station, Pali and after regular investigation charge sheet was filed alleging against Surendra Singh for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pali by order impugned held that whatever allegations levelled in the application against the respondent relates to the acts said to have taken place in District Ajmer, that is beyond the territorial jurisdiction vested with him. Learned Magistrate accordingly discharged accused Surendra Singh with liberty to the complainant to file appropriate complaint at the place having requisite territorial jurisdiction. 3 The contention of counsel for petitioner, while giving challenge to the order impugned, is that the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC are continuous act and, therefore, the marriage being taken place at Pali, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pali was having adequate territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. It is also contended by counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate could have returned the complaint but could not have discharged the accused respondent No.2 from the charges for commission of offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced and also examined the entire record. From perusal of whatever material available on record, I am satisfied that whatever act alleged to constitute offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC took place at Kharwa in District Ajmer and not within the territorial jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pali, therefore, he rightly refused to proceed with the matter. The argument of counsel for the petitioner that the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC are in continuance of marriage and, therefore, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pali could have dealt with the matter is not 4 having legal support in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Ratan & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Anr., reported in (2007)1 SCC (Cri) 336. The contention of counsel for the petitioner that the learned Judicial Magistrate erred while discharging the respondent No.2, is also of no consequence as, as a matter of fact the learned Judicial Magistrate has refused to entertain the matter being lacking jurisdiction, while leaving it open for the complainant to submit appropriate complaint at the place having requisite territorial jurisdiction. In view of that I do not find any error in the order impugned. However, looking to the old age of the petitioner, I consider it appropriate to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pali to return the complaint and charge sheet to learned Public Prosecutor to remit the same to the police station having territorial jurisdiction to investigate any act taken place at Kharwa in District Ajmer. The police station concerned shall on receiving the record may proceed further in accordance with law. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.