^t ^ &1. APPLICANTS: isc. petsti! .345 of 2001 1. Raghubir Slngh, S/o Late Rajendra Singh, age 32 years, Gurieet Singh. S/o -ate Raiendra Sinah, age 38,'sars, 3. Surendra Kaur, W/o. -ate Raiendrs ^innh <a^A TH ys^r?? ^^iS i^jfai d^1^^ -^W J^^EJ^] ^ 4. Sakhvinder Kaur, W/o Surjeet Sinoh, sge 36 y$srs, Appiicants No.1 to 3 R/o Indira Naaar, Charoda, P.S. Charoda, Disit. Durg (C.G.), App!icant No.4 R/o Power House Bhilai, Sanjay Chowk, P.S. Chhaon!', BniJai, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Thrcugh Station House Officer, P.S. fvlahiia Thans, Raipur, cnhaaisgarh. NON-APPLICANTS: 2. Smi. Jasbir Kaur, W/o Sri Gurjeet Singh, age 35 years, R/o Station Road, Near Gurudwara, Raipur (C.G.) {Application under Section 482 of th®Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} §itS-r^3y'^}si'? h'resent: i/ir. Uttam Pandey, counsei for the applicants. tflr. Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel Lav/yer for the State/non-applicant No.1 ale Bench: Hon'bSe Mr. T.P. Sharma, J. (Passed on 22nd August, 2008) This petition is fiied for quashment of proceedings in Crjminal Case No.1708/2006 pending before the Judiciai Magjstrate, First Class, Raipur for offence punishabie under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the i.P.C. on the ground that the. triai Court has exceeded the territoriat jurisdictton of trial of the case. ^ '\ ;-';'N' 2. I have heard Searned counsei for the parties, perused t'ne copies of the order sheets and copy of the charge sheet fited by the a.oplicants. 3. It is argued on behalf of the applicants that accordinfl to the first informatlon report anci the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 181 of the Cr.P.C. It is evident that the cause of action arose at District Durg not within the territoriat iurisdiction of the Court situated at Raipur. Continuation of proceedings before the Court havin.g no jurisdiction wili amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 4. On the other ha.nd, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State/non- applicant No.1 opposed the application and submitted that already filed appiicatlon reiatin.g to tenaDiiity of ths case undsr Sections 177 & 178 of the Cr.P.C. same is pending the triai Court, therefore, the present Detition is not tenable. ths triai Court consideration before 5. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be made in rarest of rare cases with a view to oive effect to the order under the Code to prevent abuse of process ofthe Court and to othepA'ise secure the ends of justice. i. This pstition has been fijed for quashing of the proceedings pending before the Judiciat Maaistrate, First Class, Raipur in Criminai Case No.1709/2006 which is neither just nor proper. Triai is at the sta.ge of conclusion and this is not a case for invotong the extra ordinaryjurlsdiction. 7. Copies of the orde.r sheets of the tria! Court reveal that the applicants have aiready filed objection/appiication retating to jurisdiction of tne tnal Court under Sections 177 & 178of the Cr.P.C., same is pendina consideration. The applicants having aiternative remedy to agitate the matter before the trialCourt, have invoked the original jurisdiction and ths applicants have already applied ^ '.s^ Soma for appropriate remedy before the trial Court. In the clrcumstqnces, invoking extra ordinaw jurisdiction ofthis Court is not proper in this case. 8. Consequentiy, the petition is dismissed in iimine. However, She appiicants sha! be at liberty to avaii appropriate remedy before the trial Court at proper stage. I.A.No.1/2008, application for stay, stands disposed of. Sd/- T-p-SWn,a : Su