1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 602/2006 Padam Chand & ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date: 29.03.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI, J. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, for the petitioners. Mr. D.D. Khandelwal, for the respondent no. 2. Mr. G.S. Fauzdar, Public Prosecutor for the State. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed to quash the order dated 9th January, 2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Kama and order dated 5th July, 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Deeg in its revisional jurisdiction. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has impugned the orders inter alia on the grounds of jurisdiction as also limitation. He has canvassed that the cruelty is alleged to have been committed with the complainant at Laxmangarh, District Alwar. The complaint was filed by the complainant Indra Devi in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kama. Similarly, the complainant asked for return of her 'Stridhan' 2 also at Laxmangarh and not at Kama, hence, the FIR at police station Kama was registered sans jurisdiction. He further canvassed that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 4th June, 1991 and the complaint is found to have been filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate in July, 1998. Thus, it was barred by limitation under the provisions of Section 468 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel further canvassed that otherwise too, there was no evidence against the petitioners with regard to offences under Section 498-A and 406 of IPC and the learned court below arbitrarily took the cognizance for the aforesaid offences and proceeded against them. Hence, both the impugned orders rendered by the courts below deserve to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant- respondent as also the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State defended the impugned orders and stated the same to be just and proper, which call for no intervention. 5. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the impugned orders, it is noticed that the police, after completion of investigation, filed the charge-sheet against the petitioners namely Padam Chand, Vijay Singh, Peeta Ram, Raghunath, Shivraj, Guru Dayal, Hari Singh, Smt. Bhoti Devi and Smt. Sheela Devi in the offences under 3 Sections 406 and 498-A of IPC. Nothing has emerged on record which could suggest that from the evidence collected by the police, no offence under Sections 406 and 498-A of IPC was established. The order of taking cognizance can be set aside only in the event when the facts as contained in the FIR as also the evidence collected by the police during the investigation do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. Learned trial court as also the learned Additional Session Judge, No.2, Deeg in its revisional jurisdiction discussed the evidence in detail and in the light of the established principles of law, found that there was ample evidence on record to proceed against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498- A and 406 of IPC. Both the impugned orders are found to be just and proper and I do not find any illegality or infirmity therein. 6. In a catena of cases, it has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are to be used sparingly in the rarest of the rare cases with circumspection and the order of taking cognizance of the offences on the police report filed under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. cannot be set at naught to scuttle the justice at the threshold. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard 4 to jurisdiction and limitation prima facie appears to be attractive but the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to jurisdiction and limitation prima facie appears to be attractive but they have been dealt with by the courts below at length. Learned trial court condoned the delay. So far as, the jurisdiction is concerned, the complainant belonged to Kama, as she was born there and lived with her parents. She was married at Kama, hence, she had an option to file the complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kama. Thus, I do find any jurisdictional error committed by the complainant. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel in this regard are not found to be tenable. 7. For the reasons stated above, the criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being bereft of any merits deserves to be dismissed which stands dismissed accordingly. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. Mak/- 38